Maya Evans Judicial Review - Courts See Sense

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by OldSnowy, Jun 25, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    For those interested in our Ops in Afghanistan, it will be exceeingly good news to read the following:

    "UK troops can continue to transfer Taliban suspects to Afghan detention but not to a Kabul site subject to an existing ban, the High Court has ruled.
    The legal challenge by anti-war activist Maya Evans, from East Sussex, claimed the policy led to "horrible abuse" and violated international law.
    Judges said the practise could continue with other detention facilities if existing safeguards were strengthened.
    The government welcomed the decision and said monitoring was in place.
    The High Court judges said Ms Evans had won "a partial victory" but had not succeeded in her attempt to stop all transfers.
    Ms Evans's lawyers told the High Court that detainees handed over to the National Directorate of Security (NDS), a secret service organisation in Afghanistan, had been tortured. They said detainees had suffered beatings, electrocution, sleep deprivation, been forced into stress positions, and undergone whipping with rubber cables. They also said the process of handing over suspect insurgents to the NDS was "emphatically not" compatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    But the judges refused to rule the transfer policy unlawful, considering instead the individual history of each NDS detention facility - NDS Kabul, NDS Kandahar and NDS Lashkar Gah. They said: "There is a real risk that detainees transferred to NDS Kabul will be subjected to torture or serious mistreatment. Transfers could lawfully be made to NDS Kandahar and NDS Lashkar Gah, "provided that existing safeguards are strengthened by observance of specified conditions". The judges also ruled that isolated examples of abuse at those facilities "are possible, but the operation of the monitoring system - including observance of the specified conditions - will be sufficient to guard against abuse on such a scale as to give rise to a real risk of torture or serious mistreatment".

    This astonishing victory for the MOD comes as a great relief for many - if this 'Peace Activist' had won 'her' case (funded of course on Legal aid) then we could have faced the prospect of either detaining Talibs and then letting them go, even if caught red-handed (or ANFO-handed).

    Well Done, your Worships :)
  2. Agreed. For once some common sense has been applied.
  3. Is that it? Come on, lets have an argument.

    To start with I think it is very good that Miss Evans was given legal aid to fight the case - it would be a very unhealthy thing if you could only challenge the state in court if you can fund the same legal firepower as a government department has at its beck and call out of your own pocket.

    Then lets strip out the name calling such as 'peace activist' and 'anti war campaigner' as meaningless terms all intended to denigrate the messenger while failing to address the message.

    And the message? British troops are handing people over to detention centres where they are having ten bells knocked out of them which is directly against everything we are supposed to stand for and which we are all told is counter-productive and only increases the threat against security forces.

    And the judge agreed that in Kabul an illegal beating was a nailed on certainty, and the other three centres cannot be trusted to behave and need intense monitoring.

    Job done, Kabul banned, monitoring in place and the British Army better off.

    Well done Miss Evans, because it wouldn't have happened without you.
  4. Caecilius

    Caecilius LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    You could argue that what the Afghans do to their enemies from their own country is largely up to them.
  5. Well done? She didn't get the result she wanted did she? Thank ****, because if she had we'd have been screwed. I doubt you've seen the frankly luxurious conditions our 'detainees' are held in before they're released or handed over to the NDS. Believe me, I know it's a lot better than any PB and most FOBs. Can't you see how damaging it is to be seen to be concentrating more on the 'rights' of your enemy than support to your own soldiers? I would dearly like to think that all the superhuman effort put into this from the the point of capture through all the LEGAD, POLAD, commanders etc would be worth it.

    It isn't - because our enemy doesn't give a fig about it.
  6. You can't really say what she wanted. If her aim was to simply to make life impossible for the security forces then no, she didn't,
    but if her aim was to stop detainess getting an illegal and, co-incidentally, counter productive, leathering as soon as they pass out
    of direct British control then yes, she did succeed.

    You are right, I have no idea of the comparative luxury in which they are held prior to hand over, but I bet part of the reason for that
    Is someone, somewhere sees an operational advantage in insurgents knowing that they are treated well if they surrender.

    If they know that trreatment is only a temporary lull before they are handed over and mullered then
    all that just goes out of the window and counts for nothing.

    My argument is that now monitoring is in place, and the picture has been painted of what will happen if that fails, then it is all to
    the good and she caused that to happen - whether she likes it or not.
  7. My bold