Deadlines set in Guantanamo case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/8014527.stm

Version 0 of 1.

A deadline for the government to serve its defence to a test case brought by seven ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees has been imposed at the High Court.

Binyam Mohamed, Bisher Al Rawi, Jamil El Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Moazzam Begg and Martin Mubanga are all seeking damages.

Tim Otty QC said the security services had breached UK and international law.

The judge ruled that the defence must be served by 10 July and relevant documents disclosed by 9 October.

'Great importance'

All seven men who brought the case are seeking compensation from the Foreign Office, the Home Office, MI5 and MI6 and the Attorney General.

Mr Otty, representing them, said the government was guilty of "unlawful conduct amounting to domestic and international crimes in aiding and abetting the unlawful imprisonment, extraordinary rendition and torture" of his clients.

He added: "The suffering experienced by these individual claimants has on any view been immense; the ill-treatment to which they have been subjected has been on any view extraordinary."

The judge accepted that reviewing the documentation required a team of 18 barristers and that time was needed to prepare a proper defence.

But he rejected the government's suggestion that the service deadline be imposed as October on the basis that this would lead to an "unacceptable drift" in proceedings.

He said: "Plainly this is litigation not only of great importance to the parties, but raising matters of great public concern."

But he turned down Mr Otty's application for an order of a named solicitor from each government department to take responsibility for the documents' integrity.

The judge said that the government acknowledged in principle that a "rogue officer" seeking to pervert the course of justice by destroying or concealing relevant material was possible.

But the claimants acknowledged that appointing supervising solicitors could not remove that risk altogether, and the judge said that the appointment of such solicitors was not necessary to achieve compliance.