Chahal v UK - Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary...

Description

Chahal v UK (1996)  Deportation case  Chahal lived in India before moving to the UK. Home Secretary wanted to deport them. ECtHR made it clear that Art 3 was an absolute right. Danger to public security not relevant. Danger that they will face torture upon arrival to India? Yes? We cannot deport them. Objective investigation by the Court raising all sorts of issues still considered today. Aksoy v Turkey (1997)  First time torture was found  Individual accused of aiding and abetting terrorist group, detained and subjected to Palestinian hanging. Long term physical symptoms. Held that torture often leads to permanent damage.  ECtHR: “of such a serious and cruel nature that it can only be described as torture” A v Home Secretary (No. 2) (2005)  Must be distinguished from the 2004 case.  Use of evidence obtained by torture  Evidence obtained by torture is: “unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency”  Admission of evidence used against suspected terrorists obtained by torture from allies.  Lord Goff: “the use of torture is dishonourable. It corrupts and degrades the state which uses it and the legal system which accepts it.” Ireland v UK (1978 and 2018)  Interstate application – one state bringing a case against another  About The Troubles in Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and the UK. Conflict between two sides, one wanted Ireland to stay in the UK, the other wanted to join the Republic of Ireland.  Series of bombings  Over 3000 suspected terrorists arrested, interned and interrogated  Fundamental because 14 men were subjected to five techniques: forcing people to stand in stressed positions against the wall, hooding them to deprive them of sight for a long period of time, depriving them of food, drink and sleep  Both physical and psychological damage. Psychological damage could be long term.  ROI challenged UK  ECtHR – had not reached threshold of torture but was degrading and inhumane treatment  Case significant because several other states relied upon this judgement to justify their detention methods. Other states deem this acceptable as ECtHR has not found the five techniques to constitute torture.  2014 – ROI acquired new evidence not known at time of judgement. Evidence included memos passed around UK government ministers, their memos implied that they believed the five techniques did constitute torture. Change for judgement to be revised.  ECtHR declined – 20 March 2018



  

If the case was decided today, it may have been torture. In the minds of the CA in Belfast, what would not have been considered torture 40 years ago may be considered as torture today. Article 3 is a living, working, document. “The Hooded Men” Ongoing case in Northern Ireland to force investigation....