UK ‘complicit in torture’ as intelligence agencies disregard government policy

In its 2021 annual report, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) said UK intelligence agencies had failed to remind ministers of the presumption against sharing intelligence where doing so could lead to a “real risk of torture”.

Ministers were asked three times to approve information transfers where a real risk of torture, unlawful killing or extraordinary rendition had been identified, and 17 times to approve transfers where a a real risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment had been identified, The Guardian reports.

The IPCO report, which was published late last month, does not say whether approval was granted in any of the 20 cases, but criticises the likes of MI5 and MI6 for failing to remind ministers of the presumption against doing so.

Dan Dolan, director of policy and advocacy at the NGO Reprieve, said: “The government’s torture policy is fatally flawed, wrongly creating the impression that ministers can authorise torture tipoffs, when this is fundamentally unlawful.

“We saw these failings time and again during the war on terror, with appalling consequences for people around the world, including British nationals, and it’s now been uncovered that the abduction and brutal torture of British blogger Jagtar Singh Johal may have been unlawfully enabled by a torture tipoff from the UK.

“We need a policy that actually prohibits, rather than simply papering over, UK complicity in torture. What reason could there be to preserve this wiggle room for ministers to get mixed up in torture, other than the prospect that they will use it?”

Stephen Timms, co-chair of Westminster’s all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, said: “The ambiguity built into this policy creates serious dangers. We warned the government years ago that unless the policy explicitly prohibits torture tipoffs, they would be doomed to repeat the mistakes that led to the UK’s shameful, and unlawful, involvement in torture and rendition.

“These new revelations should be a wake-up call that a clear red line is needed in the policy which reflects the absolute prohibition in UK law.”