*/
War – Prisoners of war. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's policy, authorising 'challenge direct' for use in the interrogation of persons captured by United Kingdom forces in situations of armed conflict. The Divisional Court dismissed the application and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the conduct authorised by the policy did not constitute inhumane treatment, coercion, threatening or insulting conduct, or unpleasant or disadvantageous behaviour. Further, there was nothing inherent in the policy which gave rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful conduct. In any event, the claimant lacked standing to bring the proceedings.
War – Prisoners of war. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's policy, authorising 'challenge direct' for use in the interrogation of persons captured by United Kingdom forces in situations of armed conflict. The Divisional Court dismissed the application and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the conduct authorised by the policy did not constitute inhumane treatment, coercion, threatening or insulting conduct, or unpleasant or disadvantageous behaviour. Further, there was nothing inherent in the policy which gave rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful conduct. In any event, the claimant lacked standing to bring the proceedings.
The Bar Council continues to call for investment...
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at...
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s...
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private...
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at...
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Six months of court observation at the Old...
The Amazonian artist’s first international solo...
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum...
Until reforms are instituted and a programme of...
It’s been five years since the groundbreaking...
