CAT/C/GBR/5
United Nations / CAT/C/GBR/5/ Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
orDegrading Treatment
or Punishment / Distr.: General
21 May2012
Original: English
Committee against Torture
Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article19 of the Convention
Fifth periodic report of States parties due in 2008
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[*],[**],[***]
[6September 2011]
Abbreviations and acronyms
ACASAdvisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
ACCTAssessment, Care in Custody and Treatment
ACDTAssessment Care in Detention and Teamwork
ACPCArea Child Protection Committee
ACPOAssociation of Chief Police Officers
ACPOSAssociation of Chief Police Officers in Scotland
AEPAttenuating Energy Projectile
AJTCAdministrative Justice and Tribunals Council
ATCSAnti-Terrorism, Crime and Security
ATCSAAnti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
CCNVQCustodial Care National Vocational Qualification
CJACriminal Justice Act 1988
CPSCrown Prosecution Service
CSRACell Sharing Risk Assessment
DDADisability Discrimination Act 1995
DIUSDepartment for Innovation, Universities and Skills
DoHDepartment of Health
DoMILLDefence Scientific Advisory Council’s subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less-lethal Weapons
DPAData Protection Act 1998
DSACDefence Scientific Advisory Council
DTODetention and Training Order
ECHREuropean Convention on Human Rights
ECtHREuropean Court of Human Rights
ECNIEquality Commission Northern Ireland
ECPTEuropean Committee for the Prevention of Torture
EHRCEquality and Human Rights Commission
ELRExceptional Leave to Remain
FOIAFreedom of Information Act 2000
FNPForeign National Prisoners
GBGreat Britain
GEOGovernment Equality Office
GOCNIGeneral Officer Commanding Northern Ireland
GPCCGuernsey Police Complaints Commission
HETHistorical Enquiries Team
HMCIPHer Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
HMICHer Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary
HMICSHer Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland
HMPHer Majesty’s Prison
HMPSHer Majesty’s Prison Service
HMRCHer Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
HMYOIHer Majesty’s Young Offenders Institute
HOSDBHome Office Scientific Development Branch
HRAHuman Rights Act 1998
HSCEHealth Service Commissioner for England
ICRCInternational Committee of the Red Cross
ICCPRInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
IMBIndependent Monitoring Board
INDImmigration and Nationality Directorate
IOInvestigating Officer
IPCCIndependent Police Complaints Commission
IRCImmigration Removal Centre
ISSPIntensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme
LASULocal Authority Secure Unit
LOACLaw of Armed Conflict
LSCLegal Services Commission
MCTCMilitary Corrective Training Centre
MHACMental Health Act Commission
NCBNational Children’s Bureau
NGONon-Government Organisation
NHSNational Health Service
NIHRCNorthern Ireland Human Rights Commission
NIPSNorthern Ireland Prison Service
NOMSNational Offender Management Service
NPMNational Preventative Mechanism
OJCOffice for Judicial Complaints
OLASSOffender Learning and Skills Service
OLSUOffenders’ Learning and Skills Unit
PABEWPolice Advisory Board for England and Wales
PACEPolice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984/ Northern Ireland Order 1989
PAVAPelargonic Acid Vanillylamide
PBRPlastic Baton Round
PCAPolice Complaints Authority
PCfAParliamentary Commissioner for Administration
PCCSPolice Complaints Commissioner for Scotland
PCTPrimary Care Trust
PECCSPrisoner Escorting and Court Custody Service
PHSOParliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
POELTPrison Officer Entry Level Training
PPCEGPolice Powers and Criminal Evidence (Guernsey) Act 2003
PPCEJPolice Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003
PSAPublic Service Agreement
PSDBPolice Scientific Development Branch
PSNIPolice Service Northern Ireland
PSOPrison Service Order
QCAQualifications and Curriculum Authority
RCIPSRoyalCaymanIsland Police Service
RUCRoyal Ulster Constabulary
SCHRScottish Commission for Human Rights
SETFSocial Exclusion Task Force
SIStatutory Instrument
SIASecurity Industry Authority
SIDCAARSelf-Inflicted Death in Custody: Analysis, Audit and Review
SIOSenior Investigating Officer
SOCASerious Organised Crime Agency
SOJPStates of Jersey Police
SPCSuicide Prevention Co-ordinator
SPSScottish Prison Service
STCSecure Training Centre
UKBAUnited Kingdom Border Agency
YCAPYouth Crime Action Plan
YJBYouth Justice Board
YOIYouth Offender Institution
Contents
ParagraphsPage
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..1-256
Section I. Observations of the Committee following its examination of the
fourth periodic report of the United Kingdom …………………………………………..26-1549
Section II. Metropolitan territory: Information relating to articles 1 to 16 of the Convention…………………………………………….. 155-586 33
Article 2: Effective measures to prevent acts of torture …………………………………….156-19334
Article 3 : Return of individuals to States where they might face torture …………...... 194-19640
Article 4 : Criminalisation of torture …………………………………………...... 197-20841
Article 5 : Establishment of jurisdiction ………………………………...... 209-21243
Article 6 : Detention of individuals suspected of torture ……………………………………21344
Article 7 : Prosecution of individuals suspected of torture and not extradited………………214-23244
Article 8 : Extradition of individuals suspected of torture ………………………………….23346
Article 9 : Mutual legal assistance ……………………………………………...... 23446
Article 10 : Education and training of police, military, doctors and other personnel to
prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment ……………………………………………..235-28247
Article 11 : Systematic review of rules, instructions, methods and practices to prevent
torture and other forms of ill-treatment ……………………………………………...... 283-41353
Article 12 : Investigation of acts of torture and other forms of ill treatment …………………414-44871
Article 13 : Availability of complaints procedures for those suffering torture
or other forms of ill-treatment ……………………………………………...... 449-49577
Article 14 : Compensation for and rehabilitation of victims of torture…………………………496-50384
Article 15 : Admissibility of confession evidence……………………………………………..504-50785
Article 16 : Other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment not
amounting to torture ……………………………………………...... 508-58686
Section III. General Information...... 587-83999
Annexes
I. United Kingdom Crown dependencies...... 142
II. United Kingdom overseas Territories...... 159
Introduction
1.This is the fifth report by the United Kingdom under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It provides information on how the UK has continued to fulfil its obligations under the Convention since the examination of the UK’s fourth report (CAT/C/67/Add.2) in November 2004 and the supplementary update provided to the Committee Against Torture in March 2006 (CAT/C/GBR/CO/4/Add.1).
2.The United Kingdom is a unitary State comprising England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (but not the Crown Dependencies: i.e. the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands).References in this report to ‘Great Britain’ means England, Wales and Scotland taken together.This report has been compiled with the full cooperation of the devolved administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
3.The fifth periodic report of the Crown Dependencies of the United Kingdom (Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man) is submitted as Part 2 of this report.The fourth periodic report of the UK Overseas Territories is submitted as Part 3 of this report.
Domestic prohibition of torture
4.Torture is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in October 2000, gives further effect in the United Kingdom law to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).Article 3 of the ECHR provides that no one shall be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.The Human Rights Act places a statutory obligation upon all public authorities to act compatibly with the Convention rights and strengthens a victim’s or ability to rely upon the Convention rights in civil and criminal proceedings.
5.The United Kingdom is also party to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force in the United Kingdom on 1February 1989.Since November 2004 the Committee has made four visits to the United Kingdom in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2010. They visited Northern Ireland in 2008 and Guernsey and Jersey in 2010.
Article 22 of the Convention against Torture
6.In July 2004 the then Government reviewed on its position regarding the right of individual communication under article 22 of this Convention, as part of a wider review of international human rights instruments.
7.The Government found that it remained to be convinced of the added practical value to people in the United Kingdom of rights of individual petition to the United Nations including that conferred by Article 22 of CAT.
8.The United Nations committees that consider petitions are not courts, and they cannot award damages or produce a legal ruling on the meaning of the law, whereas the United Kingdom has strong and effective laws under which individuals may seek remedies in the courts or in tribunals if they feel that their rights have been breached.
9.In 2004, the Government acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (the CEDAW OP). One of the reasons for doing so was to enable consideration, on a more empirical basis, of the merits of the right of individual petition more generally. Since March 2005, the UK has been named in only two applications to the UN CEDAW committee, and both were found inadmissible.
10.On 27 February 2009, the UK ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. To date the UK’s experience under both protocols has not provided sufficient empirical evidence to decide either way on the value of other individual complaint mechanisms. The Government will need further evidence, over a longer period, to establish what the practical benefits are.
Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture
11.The United Kingdom ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention in December 2003.On 31 March 2009 the United Kingdom Government announced the establishment of the UK’s National Preventative Mechanism (NPM). A more detailed description of the establishment of the UK’s NPM can be found at paragraph 283. The UK fully supports the work of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture also established under Optional Protocol.Professor Malcolm Evans of BristolUniversity has been elected as independent member of the subcommittee and is currently its chair.
Role of non-governmental organisations
12.The United Kingdom Government recognises that non-governmental organisations have a significant part to play in preventing torture and other forms of ill-treatment.In preparing this report the Government sought the views of non-governmental organisations:
•Legal academics
•Amnesty International UK
•British Institute of Human Rights
•British Irish Rights Watch
•Committee on the Administration of Justice
•Human Rights Watch
•Justice, Liberty
•Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture
•Prison Reform Trust
•REDRESS
Equality and Human Rights Commission
•Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
•Scottish Human Rights Commission
•UNICEF UK
•Children’s Rights Alliance for England
•Save the Children UK
•Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
•Christians Against Torture
•Welsh Refugee Council
•Penal Reform International
•Association for the Prevention of Torture
•Reprieve.
Publication and distribution of the report
13.Copies of this report have been made available to the United Kingdom Parliament, the devolved legislatures, and have been placed in legal deposit libraries in the United Kingdom. Copies of this report is available free of charge to all interested non-governmental organisations and to all human rights contact points in the principal public authorities. A link to the report will be placed on the Ministry of Justice website ( To request a copy of the report, contact Information & Human Rights Policy, Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ or .
UK policy on torture
14.The United Kingdom’s policy on torture and cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is clear. The United Kingdom Government does not engage in torture, or solicit, encourage or condone its use. It works closely with its international partners to prevent torture occurring anywhere in the world.
15.On coming to office in May 2010, the Coalition Government affirmed its absolute opposition to torture. It made clear that the UK must be prepared at all times to judge itself against the highest international standards and to work hard to embed respect for international law and respect for human rights.This includes acknowledging where problems have arisen that have affected the UK’s moral standing, tackling difficult issues head on, and acting on lessons learnt.
16.In the period since the Committee’s examination of the UK’s fourth periodic report in November 2004, the reputation of the UK security services has been clouded by serious allegations about the role the UK has played in the treatment of detainees held by other countries. These allegations are not proven. However their seriousness has resulted in an erosion of public confidence in the UK’s intelligence services and a tarnishing of the UK’s reputation as a country that upholds human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law. The Government is committed to clearing the stain on the UK’s reputation and getting to the bottom of what happened, so that the UK intelligence services are able to get on with their important work with their reputation restored.
17.On 6 July 2010, the Prime Minister explained to Parliament how the Government intends to deal with the allegations. His full statement can be found at
18.The Prime Minister announced that an independent, judge-led inquiry would examine whether, and if so to what extent, the UK Government and its intelligence agencies were involved in improper treatment of detainees held by other countries in counter-terrorism operations overseas, or were aware of improper treatment of detainees in operations in which the UK was involved, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001.
19.The three member Inquiry panel will be chaired by Sir Peter Gibson, a former senior Court of Appeal judge and statutory commissioner for intelligence services. Sir Peter will be joined by Dame Janet Paraskeva, former head of the Civil Service Commissioners, and Peter Riddell, a former journalist and senior fellow at the Institute for Government.(The Prime Minister’s letter to Sir Peter Gibson setting out the terms of the Inquiry can be found at Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and a protocol for the conduct of its work are both available at:
20.The Inquiry will begin work as soon as possible after the end of criminal processes related to the allegations.The Government has made it clear that the Inquiry will not be open-ended: it is expected to report within a year of starting work.
21.Although some of the Inquiry’s hearings will be in public, it will not be possible to have a fully public inquiry because of the nature of the evidence being considered and the need to protect sensitive information about sources, capabilities and partnerships.However, the inquiry will be able to look at all information relevant to its work, including sensitive information; it will have access to all relevant government papers, including those held by the intelligence services; and it will be able to take evidence in public, including from those who have bought accusations against the government and their representatives, and from non-governmental organisations.The Government will ensure that the Inquiry will get the full co-operation it needs from relevant Departments and agencies.The Government is confident that the Inquiry will reach an authoritative view on the actions of the state and the UK security services, and that it will make proper recommendations for the future.The Government is also determined to have greater clarity about what is and what is not acceptable now and in the future.
22.The Government has also taken steps to improve the way decisions about foreign and security policy are made in Britain by setting up a new National Security Council (NSC) which brings together strategic decisions about foreign, security and defence policy.One of the NSC’s first acts was to finalise and publish the Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers and Service Personnel on the Detention and Interviewing of Detainees Overseas, and on the Passing and Receipt of Intelligence Relating to Detainees. The Guidance can be found at
23.The Guidance sets out the standards under which intelligence agencies and armed forces operate, making clear that UK intelligence officers must operate in accordance with international and domestic law, including the Convention against Torture and the Human Rights Act 1998.It stipulates that firstly, UK services must never take any action where they know or believe that torture will occur; secondly, if they become aware of abuses by other countries, they should report that to the Government so it can take the necessary action to stop it; and thirdly, in extracting information in cases where UK services believe that there may be information crucial to saving lives but where there may also be a serious risk of mistreatment, it is for UK Ministers to determine how to mitigate that risk.However, the Guidance is not and does not purport to be guidance to Ministers and does not seek to regulate the details of how Ministers will respond in individual cases.
24.The Guidance is subject to two judicial review challenges, which argue that it fails to reflect the Government’s international and domestic law obligations.The Government believes the Guidance is fully consistent with its legal obligations, and is defending the proceedings.
25.The UK will provide an update to the Committee on the outcome of these proceedings once they are known.
Section I:Observations of the Committee following its examination of theUK’s fourthperiodic report
Subjects of concern
26.At paragraph 4 and 5 of the Concluding Observations issued after the examination of the UK’s fourth periodic report under Convention against Torture (CAT/C/CR/33/3), the United Nations Committee against Torture raised subjects of concern and made recommendations to the UK Government. Its responses to those subjects of concern and recommendations are provided at paragraphs 27 to 154 below.
(a)remaining inconsistencies between the requirements of the Convention and the provisions of the State party’s domestic law which, even after the passage of the Human Rights Act, have left continuing gaps; notably:
(i)article 15 of the Convention prohibits the use of evidence gained by torture wherever and by whomever obtained; notwithstanding the State party’s assurance set out in paragraph 3 (g), supra, the State party’s law has been interpreted to exclude the use of evidence extracted by torture only where the State party’s officials were complicit.
27.The House of Lords in the case of A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No.2) [2005] made it clear that evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible in legal proceedings. In addition to this ruling from the then highest court in the UK, there are relevant statutory provisions. For the purposes of criminal proceedings in England and Wales section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) provides that a court shall not allow a confession to be given in evidence against an accused person unless the prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was not obtained by oppression or in consequence of anything said or done which was likely to render it unreliable. Section 76(8) of PACE makes it clear that “oppression” includes torture. Under section 78 of PACE a court may also refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution seeks to rely if it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. Such exclusion would clearly apply to evidence obtained by torture. Similar provisions are provided for in Scotland and Northern Ireland.