Public Interest Lawyers is an extraordinary firm of solicitors, who must be – certainly should be – the pride of the legal profession. Through their tenacity, quality and sheer hard work – often from unpromising beginnings and in dark times for public funding – they have single-handedly been responsible for shining the torchlight of legal accountability in a range of new areas. The work continues unabated. No barrister or judge, here or in Strasbourg, could have come to deal with the sorts of human rights issues which PIL continues to raise, but for their principled and brave pursuit of justice.

 

PIL demonstrates three further important things. First, how positive and constructive can be the use of public funding in public law cases, in the public interest. It has been hard. But PIL and the LSC have forged a partnership which is second to none, as to the importance of the cases that are brought, their success and their wider impact. Secondly, PIL demonstrates that London does not always lead, and a London-centric focus is neither helpful nor fair. This firm, from what are still sometimes thought of as “the provinces”, is the nation’s leader for human rights application in challenging cases. That PIL is looking, as a Birmingham-based firm. How refreshing for it to be that way.Thirdly, let it not be forgotten that PIL was set up as a new firm of solicitors. This is not the further and continued work of an established firm, set up long ago when times were different. This was an innovation; a leap of faith in the rule of law. It was a boat launched in a sea of uncertainty, which has turned out to be the flagship for public law accountability under the rule of law.

 

Michael Fordham QC
Michael Fordham QC
 
 

PIL: Court of Appeal Gives Green Light to Rendition Claim

The Court of Appeal has today granted permission for a judicial review brought by a Kenyan man who accuses MI5 and the FBI of complicity in his rendition and torture following the 2010 Kampala bombings.  The Court ordered that Omar Awadh Omar be allowed to bring his application which seeks disclosure from the UK about its knowledge of his alleged rendition from Kenya to Uganda, where he currently faces capital murder charges.

Background

Since September 2010, Omar, a prominent Nairobi-based Muslim human rights activist, has been held at Luzira high security prison in Kampala.  He is accused of involvement in the twin bomb attacks which killed 74 people in Kampala as they watched the 2010 World Cup Final.  If found guilty, Omar faces death by hanging.  No concrete evidence against Omar has been brought by Ugandan prosecution lawyers.

Omar alleges that he was abducted by the Kenyan Anti-Terror Police Unit, bundled into a car and driven to the border crossing at Malaba, where he was handed over, hooded and shackled, to Ugandan police.  They took him to the notorious “Rapid Response Unit” at Kireka, which human rights groups have described as a “torture chamber”.   Whilst at Kireka, he was repeatedly interrogated over the course of 21 days by two FBI agents and one MI5 agent.  Omar alleges that he was verbally abused, threatened with transfer to Guantanamo Bay, repeatedly pushed, slapped, kicked, prevented from eating or praying, punched so hard he suffered kidney damage and threatened with serious sexual assault.  Whilst the majority of these assaults were carried out by the FBI agents, they were witnessed and encouraged by the MI5 agent. Throughout his interrogations, Omar was held incommunicado without any access to his family or lawyers in an overcrowded cell infested with lice and mosquitoes.   

Omar was not questioned about the Kampala bombings, which the agents made clear they did not suspect him of involvement in.  Instead, they offered him a role as an informant.    He alleges that his refusal to cooperate has resulted in his continued detention in solitary confinement on capital charges. 

The Court of Appeal

The hearing followed the decision of the British Government to “neither confirm nor deny” involvement in the ill-treatment or rendition of Omar.  The Court of Appeal was composed of  three judges - Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Sullivan, and Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls and the second highest-ranking judge in England and Wales.  The Court held that it was at least arguably necessary to Omar’s criminal defence and/or challenge in the Constitutional Court of Uganda for the UK to disclose to him any information it holds in relation to his alleged rendition, which the Kenyan and Ugandan authorities flatly deny.  If rendition can be proved, this could result in the collapse of the charges against Omar. 

Omar also alleged that through its involvement in his coercive interrogation in Kampala, the UK had breached its 2010 Guidance to Intelligence Officers.  The Court, however, held that judicial review should not be used to challenge that alleged breach, which ought instead to be the subject instead of a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

Tessa Gregory, solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers, said today:

“This case involves extremely serious allegations of UK complicity in the unlawful rendition, treatment and prosecution of our client, Omar Awadh Omar. In light of the Court’s decision today, the Government can no longer sensibly maintain its policy of neither confirming nor denying its involvement in Omar’s case.”      

The full judicial review hearing will take place in the New Year.


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  HIGH COURT RULES IN HUNDREDS OF IRAQI UNLAWFUL KILLINGS AND TORTURE CASES...
  BBC: Baha Mousa book and Marie Colvin honoured by Orwell Prize ...
  HIGH COURT GRANTS PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW IN AFGHAN KILLINGS CASE...
  Guardian: British soldier under investigation for murder over shooting of young Afghans...
  Guardian: Labour abstention on workfare bill prompts party infighting...
  The Independent: First Al-Sweady witnesses to appear...
  DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling...
  Judicial Review launched against Birmingham City Council over cuts to "Shelforce" - a supported disa...
  The Times: Lawyer of the week – Tessa Gregory...
  BBC: Al-Sweady inquiry opens in UK into deaths of Iraqis...
  Birmingham City Council threatened with Judicial Review proceedings over cuts to 'Shelforce' - a sup...
  Open Democracy: Home Secretary, please call off the attack on kidney patient Roseline Akhalu ...
  Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quas...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down tomorrow, Tuesday 12 February 201...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down on Tuesday 12 February 2013 at 10...
  BBC: New Iraq abuse cases by British forces go to High Court...
  Public Interest Lawyers respond to false reports in the Sun Newspaper regarding cases relating to Af...
  Legal Challenge to Doncaster Mayor's Decision to Reduce Library Funding wins Permission to Appeal...
  Observer: Is Britain guilty of systemic torture in Iraq?...
  Ali Zaki Mousa (no.2) and Others v Secretary of State for Defence...
  Legal Challenge to Cuts to North Somerset Youth Services Wins Permission to Appeal...
  New Statesman: The trials of Roseline Akhalu...