header-logo header-logo

13 December 2007 / Robert Spicer
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

No torture; no debate

Torture cannot be justified under any circumstances in civilised society, argues Robert Spicer

Philip Rumney and Martin O’Boyle (NLJ, 9 November 2007, pp 1566–67) say the use of torture as an interrogation tool has been discussed with increasing frequency since 11 September 2001.

It is difficult to find any references in the legal press—including NLJ—to proposals for the legalisation of torture. The prospect of academic lawyers debating the proposed legalisation of torture is appalling. There is not, and should not be, any such debate. This is not a controversial topic. Torture is illegal and non-negotiable. Academic attempts to “debate” torture only lend apparent respectability to a matter which is beyond discussion in civilised countries.

THE LAW ON TORTURE

The law is clear. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This provides absolute protection. In no circumstances can such treatment be rendered lawful. The state cannot argue such treatment has local acceptability, that it served as a deterrent, or there were reasons justifying

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll