# Law Lords rule evidence btained under torture not admissable in UK courts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 9, 2005, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856 "2005-12-09T10:47:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/1 "2005-12-09T10:47:31Z")
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/4509530.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4509530.stm) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/4347694.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4347694.stm) So, evidence obtained under torture is not admissable in British courts, that includes torture in other countries by non-British operatives. Personally I feel it’s the right decision, since torture hasn’t been an acceptable way of getting evidence for hundreds of years and evidence obtained under torture is unreliable. The onus is now on the prosecution to prove that any evidence was gained by legitimate means. Do you feel that this was the right decision? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/2 "2005-12-09T11:51:36Z")
Definitely the right decision. In and of itself it’s good. However, unless we rigorously define torture, including psychological torture, then it’s the start of a slippery slope slanting things too much in favour of the defendant. What’s to stop someone saying, “But they tortured me”? I’m confident we’ll work it out - we already have rules about duress. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/3 "2005-12-09T11:59:32Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > Do you feel that this was the right decision? Without a doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/4 "2005-12-09T12:07:23Z")
Yes, because this should mean that: a)we will not be _promoting_ the extraction of evidence by means of torture b)we will not be _using_ existing evidence if it was derived by torture - such evidence is notoriously unreliable anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/5 "2005-12-09T12:32:29Z")
I was entirely for this until I saw the news and saw what they were defining as torture. Simply grabbing a prisoner by his soldiers and shaking him to grab his attention is torture (the so called “attention grab”, closely related to the “attention slap”)? ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/6 "2005-12-09T12:41:46Z")
> [@Dominic Mulligan](#): > > I was entirely for this until I saw the news and saw what they were defining as torture. Simply grabbing a prisoner by his soldiers and shaking him to grab his attention is torture (the so called “attention grab”, closely related to the “attention slap”)? I have a feeling that this is going to go the same way as the “homophobia” thread. Torture is torture, just as prejudice is prejudice. The fact that a particular form of torture is “mild” in comparison to what the guards _could_ do to the prisoner if they wanted doesn’t stop it being _torture_. The [full text](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand.pdf) (240k PDF) of the judgement explicitly states (paragraph 53, page 44) that certain techniques authorized at Guantanamo Bay _do_ count as torture, incidentally. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/7 "2005-12-09T13:42:02Z")
But torture is very specifically defined. The “attention grab” simply does not meet the definition of torture as used in common parlance. > [@](#): > > tor·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr) > n. > > Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. > An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. > Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. > Something causing severe pain or anguish. From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/8 "2005-12-09T14:07:26Z")
**Dominic Mulligan** - legal definitions use a different standard than common parlance and the dictionary. The legal definition of insanity is different from both medical insanity and what the average joe in the street would consider to be “crazy”. I don’t think slapping or grabbing people is necessary simply in order to get their attention. Clapping your hands loudly 6 inches from their face or banging a table would do the job just as well, without requiring physical contact. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/9 "2005-12-09T14:27:29Z")
[Convention against torture](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm) To which the UK and the USA are party to. I’m sure the usual no-shame posters to whom the ‘spirit of the law’ is just something to be ignored will be here soon to point out the wiggle room that makes it totally fine to torture the crap out of whoever they want though. “Look, look - nothing in there about flying them to a country like Afghanistan and then torturing them is there! So long as we don’t turn them over to other states that might torture them. See, see! Afghan Brick Factories cannot be considered as ‘jurisdiction.’” :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > The States Parties to this Convention, > > ``` > Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, > > Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, > > Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms, > > Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, > > Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975, > > Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world, > > ``` > > Have agreed as follows: > > PART I > > Article 1 > > ``` > 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. > > 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. > > ``` > > Article 2 > > ``` > 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. > > 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. > > 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/10 "2005-12-09T16:17:17Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > The onus is now on the prosecution to prove that any evidence was gained by legitimate means. Er, no. Saying that evidence obtained by torture should be inadmissable is easy. But, as the Law Lords themselves acknowledged (at some length), it is establishing whether evidence has actually been obtained by torture that’s the difficult bit. That’s why it was over this issue of the burden of proof that the seven Lords disagreed. But all of them recognised that expecting anyone (specifically the Home Secretary) to prove that torture had not been used would be an impossible standard. Hence the ruling by the majority that it should be decided by the balance of probabilities. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/11 "2005-12-09T16:25:35Z")
Sorry, the onus is on the prosecution to show that on the balance of probability no torture was used. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/12 "2005-12-09T16:52:57Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > **Dominic Mulligan** - legal definitions use a different standard than common parlance and the dictionary. The legal definition of insanity is different from both medical insanity and what the average joe in the street would consider to be “crazy”. Yes, they often are, but even a cursory glance at **tagos** ’s link shows that in this case, the definitions are not dissimilar: > [@](#): > > 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which **severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession** , punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. How can being shaken by the shoulders possibly be classed as torture even under the legal definition? What am I missing? ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-lords-rule-evidence-btained-under-torture-not-admissable-in-uk-courts/334856/13 "2005-12-09T17:03:20Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > Sorry, the onus is on the prosecution to show that on the balance of probability no torture was used. Does the judgement actually establish that? The majority opinion (Lord Hope, para 118) says: > [@](#): > > SIAC (the “prosecution” in this case) should not admit the evidence if it concludes on a balance of probabilities that it was obtained by torture. In other words, if SIAC is left in doubt as to whether the evidence was obtained in this way, it should admit it. That doesn’t exactly put the burden of proof on the defendant, but the evidence is _only_ excluded if torture _can_ be proved to greater than 50% probability; it’s not the case that evidence will be excluded _unless_ torture can be _disproved_. The minority of the court, represented by Lord Bingham, wanted to adopt that position (with a greater standard of disproof than “balance of probabilites”), but that isn’t the final decision. That’s not to take away anything from the importance of the case - the original contention was that the evidence was admissible even if torture was proved 100%.