Yunus Rahmatullah Appeal: British Handed Prisoner To US 'In Questionable Circumstances'


First Posted: 23/02/2012 13:16 Updated: 23/02/2012 13:16   PA

British military chiefs handed a prisoner to the Americans in "questionable circumstances" following the 2003 allied invasion of Iraq and "appear to have sold the pass" which might have allowed them to protect him, one of the UK's most senior judges said on Thursday.

United States' authorities had "in suitably diplomatic language" declined to return Pakistani Yunus Rahmatullah - who has been held without trial for eight years - so that he could be released, said The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger.

The judge was speaking after British human rights lawyers' attempts to free 29-year-old Rahmatullah ended in disappointment.

London-based legal charity Reprieve, and a law firm, won a legal argument last year when they used a piece of ancient English common law to persuade the Court of Appeal in London to order the release of Rahmatullah.

Reprieve and law firm Leigh Day & Co asked appeal judges to order Rahmatullah's release by granting "habeas corpus" relief - a procedure which requires a court to examine the legality of a detention.

Lawyers, who took instructions from one of Rahmatullah's relatives, said he was being held without trial by US forces at Bagram air base in Afghanistan but remained under UK control as part of a "memorandum of understanding" with the Americans.

They said Rahmatullah had been captured by British troops then handed to the Americans - and successfully argued that the UK Government had the power to ask US authorities to free him.

But earlier this week, appeal judges cancelled the release order they made in December after the Foreign Office said American authorities were not going to "play ball" and British ministers had "reached the end of the road".

And Lord Neuberger, who heard the appeal with Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Sullivan, today explained why judges had decided to discharge the habeas corpus writ they had issued.

"The melancholy truth is that the events since we handed down judgment appear to establish that when the UK defence forces handed over (Rahmatullah) to the US authorities in questionable circumstances in 2004 they most unfortunately appear to have sold the pass with regard to their ability to protect him in the future," said Lord Neuberger, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, in a written ruling.

"That does not mean that the issue of the writ of habeas corpus was a pointless exercise in this case: it performed its minimum function of requiring the UK Government to account for its responsibility for (Rahmatullah's) detention and to attempt to get him released.

"This case is an illustration of the court performing perhaps its most vital role, namely to ensure that the executive complies, as far as it can, with its legal duties to individuals, in particularly when they are detained."

The US defence department told British ministers that the American government felt that Rahmatullah was being "properly detained ... consistent with the international law of armed conflict", said Lord Neuberger.

And the Foreign Office told judges that America "in suitably diplomatic language" had "effectively declined" the request for Rahmatullah's transfer into British custody, he added.

Rahmatullah's cousin Munir Ahmed said, in a statement issued by Reprieve: "After eight years of misery, the British court finally gave us some hope when they tried to free Yunus. So we are bitterly disappointed that he is still in Bagram.

"We still believe the British Government can get Yunus back home to his family, and we desperately hope they keep trying to help us. I would just like the British to say to the US: Yunus is cleared for release, so why can't he go home?"

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

British military chiefs handed a prisoner to the Americans in "questionable circumstances" following the 2003 allied invasion of Iraq and "appear to have sold the pass" which might have allowed them t...
British military chiefs handed a prisoner to the Americans in "questionable circumstances" following the 2003 allied invasion of Iraq and "appear to have sold the pass" which might have allowed them t...
British military chiefs handed a prisoner to the Americans in "questionable circumstances" following the 2003 allied invasion of Iraq and "appear to have sold the pass" which might have allowed them t...
British military chiefs handed a prisoner to the Americans in "questionable circumstances" following the 2003 allied invasion of Iraq and "appear to have sold the pass" which might have allowed them t...
Filed by Michael Rundle  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Samareth
Defender of polite debate
14:29 on 24/02/2012
To all of those who point to terrorists as a justification for things like indefinite detention just being Middle-Eastern and Muslim doesn't make someone terrorist for one thing. In the case of people in Iraq, the amount of hostility between Shiites and Sunnis means that being those two things actually means you are the group most likely to be blown up By a terrorist. I also think the most important thing in terms of being on the right side is precisely that you follow a better standard of conduct than your enemies.
17:30 on 23/02/2012
When the Americans say "Jump" the British reply "How high?" Being held for eight years without trial is not what any civilised nation would inflict on a suspect, but then, this is the United States, not a civilised nation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Samareth
Defender of polite debate
14:22 on 24/02/2012
On this one issue of indefinite detention I, as an American, completely agree with you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
14:40 on 23/02/2012
Come on Huff post report the full story rather than hype.
This man picked up his gun and left Pakistan in which to fight the good fight in...Iraq.

As for him returning to his family, his family hadn't heard from him for over 7 years and then only found out when the Red Cross informed them he had been picked up in..Iraq.

As for British human rights orgs, how about caring for the people killed by terrorists for a change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
06:19 on 24/02/2012
Which side's terrorists?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ideaville
I have sexdaily, I mean dyslexia, Danm!
14:39 on 23/02/2012
Why do we keep letting the legal profession in the UK work against the interests of the people solely for the money they earn from these appeals? They cause us more problems than the terrorists themselves. Let Pakistan demand his release, he has no legal status in the UK.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
06:21 on 24/02/2012
In other words, he's guilty because the Big People say he's guilty!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ideaville
I have sexdaily, I mean dyslexia, Danm!
08:37 on 24/02/2012
I am not commenting on whether he is guilty or not. His only tie to the UK is that we arrested him in Iraq. On past form he will now be entitled to bring his family to the UK, receive millions in compensation and have to be constantly monitored by MI5.
We simply cannot afford it!