Guantanamo: £30m torture case bill for taxpayers

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter Published: 7:30AM GMT 01 March 2010

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed Photo: REUTERS

Binyam Mohamed, who is at the centre of a row over Britains purported complicity in torture, and five alternative men are each suing MI5 and MI6, claiming the security services were complicit in their purported woe in custody.

They could be awarded in between �200,000 and �500,000 each if they win their cases, but arching authorised bills will dwarf any indemnification awards, as the corner movement by the men is now approaching to take 7 years to work the approach by the courts.

Court of Appeal to listen to Government"s conflict to keep "torture" justification tip Binyam Mohamed in line for taxpayer-funded benefits US attempted to wisecrack Binyam Mohamed with defence discount Guantanamo detainee sues over unusual delivery prior to woe Al-Qaeda detainees lied in Guantanamo interrogations Guantanamo Bay detainee commits self-murder

Sources close to the box have disclosed that 75 lawyers have been hired by the Government to differentiate by hundreds of thousands of personal papers relating to the detainees arrests and treatment.

It will take up to five years for the Government to hope for the defence, at a likely cost of �20m, and given all 6 of the former detainees are being given authorised assist to quarrel for compensation, their own lawyers fees and justice costs are approaching to supplement an additional �10m.

A source inside of Whitehall told The Dailythat �30m was "a regressive estimate" for the last cost of the case.

The celestial authorised check is apropos a source of row in Whitehall, where both the Foreign Office and the Home Office, who are being sued along with MI5 and MI6, are carrying to obstruct much-needed income and manpower to fighting the case.

One Foreign Office source said: "What we are faced with is an startling undertaking. The authorised teams have to inspect 220,000 papers from the assorted departments to see if they are applicable to the case. Each request additionally has to be assessed for inhabitant security concerns. Its an immensely difficult process."

A sum of 60 barristers have been vetted and given security clearway to work on the documents, together with fifteen office and solicitors. Each of the barristers is approaching to cost around �50,000 per year.

Mark Stephens, a barrister who fought for the recover of report about Mr Mohameds treatment, said: "The bottom line is that it would be significantly cheaper for the Government to reach an out of justice settlement, but revelation any liability."

But the Foreign Office, that vehemently denies being in any approach thankful for any mistreatment, pronounced it had no preference but to quarrel the case.

A Foreign Office orator said: "It is loyal that the lawsuit brought by former Guantanamo Bay detainees carries a cost to the taxpayer. In all cases we are responding to claims done by others. In each box the Government is thankful to benefaction the on all sides effectively in court.

"The UK did not render, transfer, detain, subvert or woe any of these individuals. Nor, as alleged, did we come in in to a little sort of swindling or corner craving possibly with the US or with any alternative state to do so. These are really critical allegations that we deny. We will energetically urge the box in court."

It emerged after the Master of the Rolls warned that a little members of MI5 have a "dubious record" on human rights and torture, and the use has "an seductiveness in the suppression" of report about the diagnosis of former terrorism suspects.

Lord Neuberger pronounced there was justification that Mr Mohamed had been "mistreated" by US officials, and the Security Service had not been "frank" about their involvement.

He combined that the Security Service had misled the parliamentary Security and Intelligence Committee over their believe of the mistreatment, definition Government assurances on purported woe should be "distrusted".

Lord Neuberger"s comments were contained in a newly expelled divide from a statute he and dual alternative judges done progressing this month that had systematic the recover of report about Mr Mohamed"s purported torture.

The divide had been deleted from the strange statute after an involvement from the Foreign Office"s barrister, Jonathan Sumption QC, who had argued that the "exceptionally damaging" comments were not formed on justification put prior to the court.

Ethiopian-born Mr Mohamed, 31, who was postulated interloper standing when his family fled to Britain in 1994, was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 as he attempted to residence a moody utilizing a feign British passport.

Having turn enthralled in Islam to assistance him overcome a heroin and crack heroin habit, he pronounced he had left to Afghanistan to see the "pure" form of Islam being practised and given he longed for to go to Chechnya as an assist and rescue worker. He outlayed 45 days in a precision stay in Afghanistan but insists he did not sense bomb-making or any alternative skills that could be described as militant training.

After he was arrested as a suspected militant he was tortured by his captors, and claims MI5 was complicit given an MI5 military officer helped hope for questions for his interrogations, wakeful that he was being mistreated. He was expelled from Guantanamo Bay last year after terrorism charges opposite him were dropped.

The alternative former detainees suing for indemnification for purported woe are Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes and Martin Mubanga.

The Legal Services Commission, that administers the authorised assist system, pronounced in a statement: "Legal assist is usually postulated after field pass a monetary equates to exam and their cases encounter the LSCs authorised merits test.

"These are the customary tests practical to any person submitting application for authorised assist funding. We are firm to accede to appropriation for field if these tests are passed."

Six alternative former detainees have additionally served writs on the security services, but their cases will not be listened until the end of the exam box being brought by Mr Mohamed and the alternative men.

The cost of the indemnification claims does not embody the cost of the mens authorised quarrel to be expelled from Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Mohameds authorised assist check had reached �189,000 by Sep 2008, 6 months prior to his release.

The Guantanamo six:

Binyam Mohamed, 31: Ethiopian adult postulated interloper standing in UK in 1994, arrested in 2002 for utilizing a feign British pass in Pakistan after spending time in a precision stay in Afghanistan.

Bisher al-Rawi, 49. British proprietor who fled Iraq in 1984, arrested in Gambia in 2002 on what he says was a utterly trusting commercial operation trip.

Jamil el Banna, 57. Jordanian with interloper standing in Britain, most appropriate crony of Bisher al-Rawi, with whom he was arrested in Gambia in 2002.

Richard Belmar, 30. British-born Muslim modify who went to Afghanistan to investigate sacrament in 2001. Arrested in Pakistan in 2002 at an purported al-Qaeda protected house.

Omar Deghayes, 40. Libyan adult with British residency, arrested in Pakistan in 2002 after spending a year in Afghanistan, where he had tied together and had a son.

Martin Mubanga, 37. Zambian-born British adult who has lived in London given he was three, arrested in Zambia in 2002 after spending time in Afghanistan.