The Case

In considering appeals from the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal, the Court of Appeal ruled, inter alia, that the Secretary of State could not rely on a statement which his agents had procured by torture, or with his agent's connivance at torture, however grave the emergency. He was not, however, precluded from relying, for the purposes of ss21 and 25, on evidence coming into his hands which had or might have been obtained through torture by agencies of other states over which he had no power of direction. If he had neither procured the torture nor connived at it, he had not offended the relevant constitutional principles. Provided that the Secretary of State was acting in good faith, a recognition of his responsibility for national security was required when assessing his approach to the material available to him. The Court also ruled that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the appeals of appellants whose certificates had been revoked.