LONDON - Lawyers representing foreign terrorism suspects and human rights groups urged Britain's top court on Monday to ban evidence obtained under torture from being used in any British legal hearings.
Britain's Appeals Court ruled in August 2004 that secret tribunals hearing cases relating to the terrorism suspects could consider evidence that would not be acceptable in a British criminal court trial.
That meant UK authorities could consider information that had allegedly been extracted using torture in another country, provided British agents were not directly involved.
Civil rights organisations denounced the ruling as tantamount to legitimising torture. They said Monday's case would be a landmark in deciding how far the government can go in rolling back human rights in the war against terrorism.
"This case raises in acute form the dilemma of any democracy when the judiciary is called upon to reconcile the protection of national security and the protection of human rights," lawyer Ben Emmerson told a panel of seven Law Lords.
The Appeal Court's decision related to the case of 10 foreigners held without charge by Britain under a now defunct security law which allowed police to detain terrorism suspects if there were "reasonable grounds" to think they were a threat.
The court ruled torture evidence could be considered by a secretive tribunal, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), that oversaw the men's cases, arguing the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks justified such a stance.
But eight suspects -- two have since left Britain -- are challenging the verdict saying they were held using torture evidence from U.S. prison camps such as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Emmerson, who is representing the group, said he accepted information extracted using torture could be used by authorities to prevent a possible terrorist attack.
But he argued that, despite this, that information should not be used in a court against any suspects. He also said while Britain could use such evidence to detain a suspected terrorist, SIAC should not be permitted to consider it in their hearings.
Human rights groups such as Amnesty, Liberty and Human Rights Watch, also insisted any evidence obtained using torture should be prohibited from courts under any circumstances.
Democracies "Must Stand Up To Torture"
"If the democracies of the world don't stand up against torture, what will they say to the people who tortured Ken Bigley (a Briton murdered in Iraq) and what will they say to Saddam Hussein and other dictators?" said Shami Chakrabati, director of Liberty.
Although Britain admits allowing information obtained by torture for SIAC hearings, it says it does not use the U.S. technique known as rendition where suspects are transported to their home countries where critics say they are sometimes tortured.
In the wake of the deadly bomb attacks on London in July, Britain said it would deport a number of Islamic extremists it describes as a threat to national security. The British government has been negotiating with several countries to guarantee such men will not be mistreated.
Those it has held prior to deportation can appeal to the SIAC and can then take their cases through the British courts, with civil rights groups claiming promises of fair treatment from countries such as Jordan were worthless.
The Law Lords' hearing is expected to last two days and a decision is unlikely until the end of the year at the earliest.
Feeds