The Solicitor

Free speech: High Court hears that decision on 'airport tweet' makes the law look silly

2012-02-09T10:40:56Z

The High Court has heard how a man found guilty of sending a "message of a menacing character" on Twitter was the victim of a legal steamroller which was in danger of making the law look "silly".

High Court judges have reserved judgment, which will be handed down at a future date.

The appellant in the case is Paul Chambers. Mr Chambers was convicted at Doncaster Magistrates Court of sending "a message of a menacing character" contrary to the Communications Act 2003.

The case concerned a message placed on the social network site, Twitter. Mr Chambers had been held at Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire in January 2010 after the airport was closed by snow.

In his message, Mr Chambers stated that he would like to blow the airport "sky high", a message which was directed to his 600 followers on Twitter. He has since said the message was intended as a joke, and was posted during a moment of frustration. Mr Chambers said he thought no one would ever take his comment seriously.

However airport staff were alerted to the tweet, and took the matter seriously enough to report it to the police.

Convicting Mr Chambers of the offence, Doncaster Magistrates ordered him to pay a £385 fine and £600 costs. Costs in the case were then increased to £2600 after Mr Chambers appealed to Doncaster Crown Court in November 2010. Upholding the conviction, Crown Court Judge Jacqueline Davies said the message was clearly menacing.

"We find it impossible to accept that anyone living in this country, in the current climate of terrorist threats, would not be aware of the consequences of their actions in making such a statement," she said.

Buoyed by support from Twitter comedians Charlie Brooker, Stephen Fry and Al Murray, Mr Chambers has now taken his appeal to the High Court.

Speaking outside afterwards, comedian Al Murray gave his opinion on the case: "I defend everyone's right to tell rotten jokes. This situation is Monty Python. It is absurd, bonkers. It means we cannot post what we want on Twitter, or say what we want: that is incredible to me."

Related links:

Read more on the story (Press Association)

Free speech (FindLaw)

Find local specialist solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Mental health law: Hospital breached duty of care which allowed patient to kill herself

2012-02-09T10:22:24Z

The Supreme Court, the highest appellate court in the land, has ruled that an NHS Trust breached its duty of care by allowing a patient home from a psychiatric unit where she took her own life.

Twenty-year-old Melanie Rabone was found hanged from a tree near her home in 2005. She had been diagnosed with a recurrent depressive disorder, after previously cutting her wrists. In a psychiatric assessment she was deemed a moderate to high suicide risk who might require detention if she attempted to leave the unit.

The case has been greeted positively by mental health charities and civil liberties groups.

Ms Rabone was a voluntary patient at the Stepping Hill psychiatric hospital in Stockport. Critics have argued that psychiatric hospitals had a tendency to show greater care towards those admitted under section than those who admit themselves voluntarily. It is thought that this decision extends the duty of care a hospital owes to its voluntary patients.

In ruling against the Pennine Care NHS Trust, the Supreme Court ruled that they had breached their obligation under article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights which prescribes that "everyone's right to life should be protected by law".

Emma Norton, the legal officer for Liberty, said: "This landmark human rights judgment means that voluntary patients in psychiatric care will finally get the same legal protection as sectioned patients. Hospitals rightly acknowledge their serious duties to detained people, why should those who have asked for help be any different?"

Jodie Blackstock of charity, Justice added: "In this case the Supreme Court has not only acknowledged that through the convention the state holds a responsibility for those in its care to whom there is a real and immediate risk of death, but when it fails in that duty, parents should be entitled to vindicate their loss also."

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Guardian)

Claiming against the NHS (FindLaw)

Find local medical negligence solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Airplane law: New rules could allow introduction of in-flight 'fat tax'

2012-02-08T10:34:51Z

A controversial judgment made in the Court of Appeal could now pave the way for airlines to introduce a 'fat tax' penalising overweight passengers who wish to fly abroad.

The ruling could effectively prevent an overweight passenger from claiming compensation if they receive unsatisfactory or inconsistent service from an airline during a flight.

The Court of Appeal case concerned the application of the UK's advanced disability and discrimination laws which would normally see compensation awarded in cases where passengers could prove that they had suffered poor service due to a disability.

The case was brought by two wheelchair users, who sued airlines they had flown with because they had been told they were not allowed to sit next to their carers during their flight. The restriction imposed by the airline led to embarrassing incidents on board the flight, and prompted the wheelchair users to instigate legal action.

However, ruling in the case, the Court of Appeal dismissed both cases, after deciding that the Montreal Convention on rules and regulations for air travel took precedence over national disability and discrimination law during air travel.

"This ruling gives airlines laissez-faire to disregard seat allocation promises made before the flight," said Daniel Barnett, a barrister at the Outer Temple Chambers.

"The ruling confirms that disabled passengers have no right to dignity once the wheels leave the runway," he added.

"It also means that airlines are immune if they choose to embarrass overweight passengers by demanding a 'fat tax'."

The introduction of a so-called 'fat tax' has been mooted by budget airline Ryanair previously, after one third of passengers they surveyed said they would support the move.

Such a tax is already effectively in place on many airlines, who insist that passengers must buy a second seat if they cannot comfortably fit into one.

Related links:

Divorce law: Government announces plans to double funding for family mediation

2012-02-08T10:04:31Z

In a week when divorce law has been in the news a considerable amount, experts have spoken up to promote the place of mediation in modern separations.

It seems that the Government is listening, as this week it announced plans to double the current £10m annual budget for publicly funded mediation services.

Divorce has been in the news this week after the Government announced plans to change the law relating to the custody arrangements for couples after a divorce. The proposals would see the Children's Act amended to include some form of a presumption of equal parenting. This would see fathers, who at present are often marginalised in contact agreements, given additional access to their children.

Divorce proceedings are inherently messy and complicated. The crucial matters which cause most grievance and heartache involve children, and the family home. Typically cases are decided by discussion, agreement and then, in the event of an impasse, the court makes a ruling.

Mediation is a legal process in which parties to divorce come together with a qualified mediator in order to work through disagreements. The Government is keen to promote mediation as a way of relieving the burden on the courts.

The additional funding announced this week will fund an expansion in the provision of publicly funded mediation services, as well as providing for a new website to promote mediation, and there are now plans to launch a telephone helpline in 2013.

This extra funding comes alongside plans to make it a mandatory requirement for separating parents to first see a mediator, before any dispute could proceed to court.

"The reform of family justice and child protection is a critical priority for Government. Our reforms [include] more use of mediation, more effective court processes and more efficient provision of advice [to] help to create a family justice system which can better resolve these difficult emotional problems in the best interests of children and families," said Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke.

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Independent)

Divorce and dissolution FAQs (FindLaw)

Find local family solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Contempt: Joey Barton escapes prosecution over 'tweets'

2012-02-07T10:01:56Z

QPR midfield captain and serial 'tweeter' Joey Barton looks set to avoid prosecution for contempt of court, despite making comments on the case of footballer John Terry which could have landed him in trouble.

Barton, well known for his outbursts on social networking site, Twitter, made his opinions on the John Terry case known on Friday evening.

The Terry case has received additional media focus in the past week following the FA's decision to rescind the captaincy from the Chelsea centre-back, pending the outcome of his forthcoming trial.

Barton went to Twitter on Friday evening to give his thoughts on the case, which he feels has dragged on for too long. He also made assertions on the guilt of the accused.

It is now thought that the Attorney General, having reviewed the matter, has decided not to bring charges against Mr Barton for contempt. However, the use of social media to comment on pending or ongoing trial cases may well prompt the Ministry of Justice into a swift review of the law. This is particularly pertinent because some on Twitter have millions of followers, and one mistake or bad comment could jeopardise an entire trial.

The current law on contempt of court was enacted in 1981. It places the burden on the publisher of any comment not to cause substantial risk of prejudice to active legal proceedings.

Proceedings are considered active the moment a person is arrested, or a warrant is issued for their arrest. The law was designed with newspapers and broadcasters in mind. However the modern era of social networking now means that websites are merely forums for the editorial of their members.

One could argue that Barton had no knowledge of the law of contempt; however, the offence is one of strict liability. That is that ignorance is no defence.

The whole matter is to be reviewed by the Law Commission, who will begin a study into the issue of contempt by publication on the internet in 2014. However, with a report date of 2016, it is thought that any proposals will come too late to prevent a perversion of justice coming sooner.

The risk is that a major trial may be halted and forced to be recommenced, which would cost the taxpayer millions. This fact is prompting many to call for the Government to think again about how to tackle this problem.

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Guardian)

What is contempt of court? (FindLaw)

Find local specialist solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Immigration law: Abu Qatada released by judge after six years without trial

2012-02-07T09:39:35Z

The Home Office is furious after judges at a Special Immigration Appeal Commission Tribunal decided to free the radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada from Long Lartin jail in Worcestershire, where he was being detained.

Mr Qatada was described by security services as Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, and videos of his hate-filled sermons were found in the possession of those who committed the 9/11 atrocities.

He had been incarcerated in a maximum-security prison for six and a half years without trial, the longest period in modern times.

The decision of the Special Immigration Appeal Commission to grant Mr Qatada bail does come with a number of conditions: he will be placed under a 22-hour curfew, meaning that he will only be allowed out of his house for two hours per day. Police and security forces will be aware of his whereabouts at all times.

The Home Office had been attempting to deport the cleric to Jordan, where he faces charges of being the orchestrator of two bomb attacks. However, a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights had determined that any trial he would face in Jordan would be unjust, as evidence obtained against Mr Qatada was obtained via the use of torture. The High Court thus decided that he could not be deported.

The Home Office was adamant that Mr Qatada should remain in custody.

"This is the argument we made in court and we disagree with its decision. This is a dangerous man who we believe poses a real threat to our security and who has not changed in his views or attitude to the UK," said a spokesperson.

The Home Office is considering an appeal against the European Court decision, and is continuing to seek further diplomatic assurances that Mr Qatada would not face trial on the basis of evidence secured by torture.

The judge in the case accepted that although Mr Qatada's detention without trial was unusually long it was required on security grounds and was therefore lawful. However, he expressed concern that continued detention without trial would be unlawful, and pressed the Government to secure an agreement with the Jordanians soon.

"The time will arrive when continuing detention or deprivation of liberty could not be justified," he said.

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Guardian)

Fair trial (FindLaw)

Find local immigration solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Stalking law: MPs call for change to law to make stalking a criminal offence

2012-02-06T13:08:37Z

A cross-party group is to publish a report following a six-month investigation into possible changes to the law regarding stalking.

The group looks set to recommend that the law is changed to give significant prison sentences for any stalking abuse, whether emotional or physical.

The cross-party report looks set to be published before a separate Home Office inquiry which has been looking at the matter through a public consultation. That consultation comes to an end today, but it will be some weeks before any concrete recommendations are made.

There is considerable and growing support in the UK at present for a change in the law. The Prime Minister David Cameron accepts that there is a gap in the criminal law at the moment regarding stalking, and that victims do need additional protection. The Home Secretary Theresa May and minister Lynne Featherstone are also thought to be sympathetic to the cause.

The chairman of the cross-party group, Elfyn Llwyd MP said: "We are very firmly of the view that there needs to be a change in the law. We've looked at other countries, such as the way Scotland has done it, and they have a law which resulted in several hundred successful prosecutions in the first year."

Any change in the criminal law would be accompanied by an awareness campaign to ensure that the CPS, police and probation services were made aware of the issue. There are approximately 120,000 stalking cases each year. Around half of these are reported to police and recorded as crimes, but only 50 of these lead to an offender being jailed.

There have been several high-profile cases, but perhaps none more so than that of department store worker Clare Bernal, who was shot dead by a stalker in Harvey Nichols in 2005. Her murderer was due in court one week later to face charges of harassment.

Probation Union NAPO has been a key backer of the new legislation. The union assistant general secretary, Harry fletcher, has spoken out on the state of the current law.

"The courts are not dealing with stalkers properly. Very few receive custodial sentences and those that do are not in prison long enough to receive treatment or rehabilitation," he said.

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Guardian)

Stalking (FindLaw)

Find local criminal solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Divorce law: Proposed changes to child access law criticised

2012-02-06T13:01:41Z

The author of a key report into family law has spoken out to criticise recent Government proposals for a change in the law on access to children for fathers after divorce. David Norgrove's report which was published before Christmas, recommended that there be no change in the existing law.

The controversy concerns the issue of access to children for parents after a divorce hearing.

At present courts generally award custody to the mother in the majority of cases. Fathers are then left to organise access, which is typically for a set amount of time on a regular basis. This has been criticised as leaving many children growing up without a father.

The Government announced last week lans to change this law, so that there would be something akin to a presumption of equal parenting rights for both parents after a divorce.

Criticising the plans, Mr Norgrove said: "The independent Family Justice Review panel thoroughly considered the issue of shared parenting and concluded that the law should not be changed."

"The family justice system must deliver the best possible outcome for all the children and families who use it, because its decisions directly affect the lives and futures of all those involved, and have repercussions for society as a whole," he added.

"If the Government has decided to legislate, I regret that, and it will be vital to find words that avoid the difficulties encountered in Australia."

In his report, Mr Norgrove cited problems encountered in Australia, which has a similar legal provision to that proposed for here. There, children are frequently embroiled in long and complex disputes over the amount of time they should spend with each parent.

However, supporters of the changes cite the Scandinavian countries, which have a presumption of shared parenting and relatively few disputes, as an example of how the law could work in practice.

Related links:

International aid: Government decides not to amend aid law to protect donations

2012-02-03T10:06:33Z

The UK Government has decided against implementing its election pledge to enshrine in the law a minimum level for international aid linked to national income levels. This is despite a further promise when they came to power that the law would be passed by the middle of their current term.

Under the proposals, the UK Government would be legally obliged to pledge a minimum level of international aid, which would have been set at 0.7% of national income.

This was included in the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2010 General Election, which saw the Tories win narrowly, and the creation of a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.

Andrew Mitchell, the development secretary, told a national newspaper this week that the public would find it hard to swallow any commitment to giving more money away, at a time when public finances are under the greatest strain for a generation.

"The British public would not think it was sensible for us to bring forward declaratory legislation ahead of vital legislation for our economic recovery," he wrote.

However, he added that the delay was also simply a matter of time in the parliamentary diary, and that when sufficient time was available the law was ready to go.

""I don't think it physically can appear now because there is not enough time left. We have signed off on the bill and it's now with the business managers. They will proceed with it when there is parliamentary time," he added.

The move has left several groups disappointed. Labour has said it is disappointed that the Government was unable to deliver on a key election promise, and the NGO Christian Aid said it feared that this would mean the Government moving away from the policy altogether.

Sol Oyuela, Christian Aid's senior political adviser said: "The UK has long been a leader in international development. Maintaining the pledge to legislate during this difficult economic period will send a powerful signal for other countries to follow, that any economic recovery 'will not be built on the backs of the world's poor'."

Related links:
Read more on the story (The Guardian)

Find local specialist solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Divorce law: Divorced fathers will get more time with their children

2012-02-03T09:43:38Z

The Children's Act 1989 is to be amended by the Government in a move designed to ensure that divorced fathers get to spend more time with their children.

A ministerial group is working on a plan which may include a "presumption of shared parenting" as part of the amendments.

The proposed changes are part of an overhaul in family law which is being described by the Law Society as one of the "most important" legal changes in more than 20 years.

At present family courts generally decide that children in a divorce should remain living with their mother. Fathers are then granted limited access, along with a maintenance order to provide for the children's upbringing. This means that at present around one in every three children grows up with an absent father.

The plan to amend the law relating to access to children for divorced fathers will be unveiled on Monday of next week (6 February). If it proceeds as expected, then it will fly in the face of the Norgrove review into family justice, which reported in November last year that it would be too onerous on judges to try to ensure greater equality in parenting.

The ministerial group looking into the matter comprises of education ministers Tim Loughton and Sarah Teather and the justice minister Jonathan Djanogly. They have been given two months to propose how the existing law could be changed in a workable fashion.

Speaking about the matter, Mr Loughton said: "Where cases do end up in court, we believe it is important that children don't lose contact with their parents, unless there are concerns about safety or welfare."

"But there is a familiar picture in the UK of parental separation leading to thousands of children losing meaningful contact with the 'non-resident parent' which is usually the father," he added.

"It is right that we consider all the options to help ensure that children can continue to have an ongoing relationship with both their parents after separation."

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Guardian)

Section 8 residence and contact orders (FindLaw)

Find local family solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Coroners and Justice: Amy Winehouse inquest in doubt

2012-02-02T11:48:58Z

The inquest which was conducted into the death of singer Amy Winehouse has been called into doubt after it emerged that the coroner in the case may not have had the necessary experience to oversee the case.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has now referred the matter to the Office for Judicial Complaints for a review.

Amy Winehouse was just 27 when she was found dead in her North London flat. She was widely known to have been battling addictions to alcohol and drugs for many years but her death came as a surprise to many who felt that she had turned a corner.

The inquest heard that she had a very large quantity of alcohol in her system on the night she died and the coroner, Suzanne Greenaway, decided that it was this that led to her death, recording a verdict of death by misadventure.

Under the present law, a coroner must have at least five years' legal experience in the UK. Greenaway had qualified as a barrister and a solicitor in Australia in 1999 but had not worked in the UK for the five year period.

The controversy is heightened by the fact that her husband, Andrew Reid, is the coroner in St Pancras where the inquest was held, and it was he who appointed his wife to take the hearing.

Now Mr Reid is writing to around 30 families whose relatives were the subject of inquests carried out by his wife to ask if they wish to have their cases re-heard.

"I appointed my wife as an assistant deputy coroner as I believed at the time that her experience as a solicitor and barrister in Australia satisfied the requirements of the post. However, in November of last year it became apparent that I had made an error in the appointment process and I accepted her resignation," said Mr Reid.

"While I am confident that all of the inquests handled were done so correctly, I apologise if this matter causes distress to the families and friends of the deceased and I will be writing to those affected to personally apologise and offer for their cases to be reheard if requested," he added.

Read more on the story (The Guardian)

What are the duties of a coroner? (FindLaw)

Find local specialist solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Extradition law: Lawyers representing Assange launch Supreme Court appeal

2012-02-02T10:56:35Z

The legal team which represents the embattled founder of the controversial Wikileaks website have launched a legal challenge to his extradition to Sweden in the UK Supreme Court.

Julian Assange is wanted by Swedish authorities over allegations that he committed sex offences.

Mr Assange, a 40-year-old Australian, shot to worldwide fame after launching Wikileaks, a free-to-access website which contains thousands of confidential US military communications on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Assange is wanted in the US to face charges relating to the content published on the website.

Mr Assange's legal team are challenging the extradition order granted by the UK on the basis that it is invalid and unenforceable. They told Supreme Court judges that the Swedish prosecutor who issued his European arrest warrant did not have the authority to do so.

The Swedish charges relate to an incident in Stockholm in August 2010. Mr Assange stands accused of raping one woman and sexually molesting and coercing another. He claims that the allegations made against him are politically motivated, designed to smear his name and get him behind bars.

His appeal will pose a key legal question to the seven Supreme Court judges: did the Swedish prosecutor have the legal authority to issue an arrest warrant according to the terms of the Extradition Act 2003?

Mr Assange's lawyer, Dinah Rose QC, will argue that it is a fundamental principle of the Act that the person issuing the warrant is impartial and independent of both parties to any case. They claim that the Swedish prosecutor is a party in the case and therefore meets neither of these criteria.

"The EAW is a draconian instrument which affects individual liberty, freedom of movement and private life: it should only be resorted to if other less invasive measures for achieving the general interest have failed or are unavailable," she said.

Related links:

EU treaty: Cameron warns of legal action in EU treaty row

2012-02-01T09:59:43Z

The Prime Minister last night had to deny that he was being forced to back down over his high-profile decision to veto the latest European Union treaty on fiscal harmony.

Yesterday he was derided by the opposition Labour party after it was revealed that EU institutions could still enforce any new agreement on the UK, even if it decided not to sign up to the changes.

In response Mr Cameron has insisted that any agreement reached by the 25 member states, which exclude the UK and the Czech Republic, would not damage the UK national interest.

The UK famously vetoed the current EU proposal for a treaty on tighter fiscal union last December. Since then the Czech Republic has joined Britain in saying it will not sign up to the new deal either.

The treaty is expected to be signed off in March this year, and will bind signatories to a raft of new measures designed to bolster the ailing Euro. The UK objected to the fundamental principles of the legislation which it believes will damage the competitiveness of the City and the EU as a whole.

The Prime Minister had previously stated that the new treaty would not be enforceable by key EU institutions. It now appears that this will not be the case, with provisions of the treaty being implemented by the European Court of Justice.

At a press conference Mr Cameron wished the 25 signatory states well in their quest for closer monetary union, and added that the UK would be watching developments very closely.

"Our national interest is that these countries get on and sort out the mess that is the euro," said Mr Cameron.

"It is also in our national interest that the new treaty - outside the EU - does not encroach on the single market or the things we care about," he added.

In a lively debate in the Commons the leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband joked: "With this Prime Minister, a veto is not for life, it's just for Christmas."

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Independent)

The European Union (FindLaw)

Find local specialist solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

Human rights: Rule to allow override of EU court decisions would be 'totally destructive'

2012-02-01T09:36:24Z

The President of the European Court of Human Rights has spoken out to warn the UK that plans to create an override for EU decisions in UK courts would be totally destructive of the entire human-rights system.

Campaigners in the UK have argued for years that British courts, and those of other member states so-minded, should have the ability to veto or override decisions of the European Court that they disagree with.

Speaking after Prime Minister David Cameron's address last week to the Council of Europe, Sir Nicolas Bratza said that despite some news reports to the contrary, there is no open conflict between the European court and its UK counterparts.

Sir Bratza praised the Prime Minister's speech, saying that there was much in it which the European Court could subscribe to.

He agreed for example that the EU court's case-load backlog was unacceptably long, and that the court should not act simply as an immigration tribunal for complex cases. He also agreed that the EU court should not substitute its own judgments for those of a reasonable national court. However, he rejected that this was happening in practice.

However, Sir Bratza spoke out against those who would see decisions of the European Court overridden.

"One of the central pillars of the Council of Europe and the convention on Human Rights is that of the rule of law. The rule of law must mean that where a court decides and delivers a final and binding judgment, it is complied with, whether it is approved of or not by the authorities concerned," he said.

One of the key current cases under consideration concerns the right of prisoners to vote in general elections. This right is currently denied in the UK and in many countries around Europe.

The European Court is currently hearing an appeal from an Italian case which could mean Britain putting an end to its blanket ban on prisoners' voting rights. Mr Cameron has previously stated that giving prisoners the vote would make him feel physically sick.

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Guardian)

Hierarchy of courts in the United Kingdom (FindLaw)

Find local human rights solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)

National security: Libyan dissidents to sue MI6 over abduction and torture claims

2012-01-31T10:10:39Z

Two Libyan dissidents are taking a former senior MI6 officer to court to challenge a little-known law which protects members of the security service from criminal liability for acts carried out abroad, providing that they are sanctioned by a cabinet minister.

The law is contained in section seven of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 which states that British security and intelligence officers are not liable under the criminal or civil law of any part of the United Kingdom for acts authorised by a senior minister. The clause has been dubbed Britain's 'licence to kill' law.

Abdul Hakin Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi have launched the legal challenge after claiming that they were tortured by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi's secret police. They accuse Mr Allen, who was the most senior officer in MI6 responsible for counter-terrorism at that time, alleging that he was complicit in their torture.

Mr Belhaj was detained in Bangkok and was then allegedly tortured by US agents before being flown to Tripoli where he says he was detained and tortured for years. His co-accuser Mr Saadi was detained in Hong Kong in 2004 in an operation which they allege was jointly coordinated by MI6 and the Libyan Foreign Minister. Mr Saadi says he also suffered years of torture.

The allegations have come to light after a huge number of confidential documents were uncovered shortly after the collapse of the Gaddafi Government last summer. Amongst these was a letter to the former Libyan Government minister Moussa Koussa from Mr Allen.

It read: "I congratulate you on the safe arrival of Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq (now known as Abdul Hakim Belhaj). This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over the years."

Civil servants have repeatedly defended MI6 over the incident, claiming that the agency was only acting under "government policy authorised by ministers".

The Foreign Secretary at the time was Labour MP Jack Straw. He has since sought to distance himself from the case, claiming that he had no knowledge of specific incidents.

"No foreign secretary can know all the details of what the intelligence services are doing at any one time," he told the BBC.

The two Libyans are claiming damages from the UK Government for unlawful detention, inhuman and degrading treatment, batteries and assaults by US, Thai and Libyan agents. Their lawyers, Leigh Day, have written to Mr Allen to inform him that if he denies their claims they will seek disclosure of government documents which would include communications between the UK Government and Gaddafi's regime in Libya, as well as with other security services including the CIA and MI5. They have given Mr Allen six weeks to respond.

Related links:

Read more on the story (The Guardian)

Do human rights apply to convicted criminals? (FindLaw)

Find local human rights solicitors throughout the UK (FindLaw)