| A v Home Secretary (No 2) | |
| Court: | House of Lords |
| Date Decided: | Thursday 8 December 2005 |
| Full Name: | A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (2004), |
| Citations: | [2005] UKHL 71 |
| Judges: | Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood |
| Prior Actions: | [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 |
| Keywords: | Rule of law |
A v Home Secretary (No 2) [2005<nowiki>] UKHL 71] is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the rule of law.
Information obtained through torture of terrorist suspects by US armed forces and passed to UK officials had been presented to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as part of the Crown's case to justify the indefinite detention in HMP Belmarsh of individuals suspected of offences related to terrorism.
"Ten men were certified by the Secretary of State as suspected international terrorists and were detained in the Belmarsh prison in London. The certification was made on the basis of information obtained by torture (infliction of severe pain or suffering on a person in order to obtain information). The men appealed their certification and claimed that the tainted information should not have been admitted. The House of Lords held that such information, indeed, should not have been admitted and allowed the appeals."[1] -pulled from the summary of the basis for the case rendered by the International Crimes Database.
These men were held without a trial which sparked contreversey among the public. That combined with the fact that torture was used as an information transfer technique, a method outlawed in the United Kingdom, made the crown's justification for imprisoning the men very flimsy. [2] Eventually a court case was created to prove that this imprisonment was unjust, eventually succeeding.
The House of Lords held that evidence obtained or likely obtained by torture committed abroad by a foreign state’s agents is inadmissible in proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. This freed the 10 men from prison if no further evidence could be provided. Furthermore, this created a major power boudary for the government of the United Kingdom. This case is considered one of the largest power check cases in the history of the United Kingdom.
Lord Bingham said the following.