Abu Qatada saved from expulsion

Abu Qatada, once described as “Osama bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe”, cannot be extradited to Jordan the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

Radical cleric Abu Qatada cannot be sent back to Jordan while "there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him", judges have ruled.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled there would be a breach of his right to a fair trial "given the real risk of the admission of evidence obtained by torture at his retrial".

It is the first time that the Strasbourg-based court has found that an expulsion would be in violation of Article 6, the right to a fair trial.

He was first arrested in 2002 and is currently held in Long Lartin jail after breaching his bail conditions.

The court ruled that key diplomatic assurances received meant there would be no violation of Article Three which bans the use of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

It also said there would be no violation of Article Five, the right to liberty and security and no violation of Article 13, the right to an effective remedy.

The judgment is not final. There is a three-month period in which the government may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court for a final judgment, although the request may be refused.

The European Court agreed with the English Court of Appeal but overturned a decision in the House of Lords.

It said that the use of evidence obtained by torture during a criminal trial would amount to a “flagrant denial of justice.”

“Allowing a criminal court to rely on torture evidence would legitimise the torture of witnesses and suspects” before a trial, it added.

“Moreover, torture evidence was unreliable, because a person being tortured would say anything to make it stop.”

The court found that torture was widespread in Jordan, as was the use of torture evidence by the Jordanian courts.

It also found that the evidence of his involvement in the two terrorist conspiracies with which he is charged, had been obtained by torturing one of his co-defendants.

When those two co-defendants stood trial, the Jordanian courts had not taken any action in relation to their complaints of torture.

The Court said there was a high probability that the incriminating evidence would be admitted at Qatada’s retrial and that it would be of “considerable, perhaps decisive, importance.”

In the absence of any assurance by Jordan that the torture evidence would not be used against Qatada, the court decided that his deportation to Jordan to be retried would give rise to a flagrant denial of justice in violation of Article Six.

On 18 February 2009 the House of Lords upheld findings by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) the diplomatic assurances would protect Qatada from being tortured.

They also found that the risk that evidence obtained by torture would be used in the criminal proceedings in Jordan would not amount to a flagrant denial of justice.

©Press Association 2012