Detainee Inquiry

Detainee Inquiry
Name	Detainee Inquiry
Formed	2010
Dissolved	2013
Jurisdiction	United Kingdom

Detainee Inquiry. The Detainee Inquiry was an independent judicial investigation established by the British government to examine allegations of UK involvement in the mistreatment of detainees following the September 11 attacks. Chaired by Sir Peter Gibson, a former Court of Appeal judge, it was tasked with reviewing whether the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), and other government bodies were complicit in torture or rendition operations conducted by allies such as the United States and Pakistan. The inquiry was announced by then-Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010 amid pressure from non-governmental organizations and legal challenges brought by former detainees like Binyam Mohamed.

Background and establishment

The impetus for the inquiry stemmed from a series of high-profile legal cases and media reports in the late 2000s that alleged complicity by British intelligence agencies in the extraordinary rendition and interrogation of terrorism suspects. Key cases included those of Binyam Mohamed, who was held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and allegations surrounding the treatment of detainees at facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2009, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was compelled by the High Court of Justice to disclose documents related to the treatment of Mohamed, revealing communications with the CIA. Following the formation of the coalition government in 2010, David Cameron announced the inquiry, stating it was necessary to "clear up" the allegations and ensure the reputation of the Security Service.

Scope and terms of reference

The inquiry's formal terms of reference directed it to investigate whether the United Kingdom was involved in, or aware of, the improper treatment of detainees held overseas by other countries between 2001 and 2010. This specifically included examining the actions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, and the Armed Forces. The inquiry was to review guidance and policies provided to personnel, the adequacy of training, and the handling of related intelligence. However, its scope was limited; it was not a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, and it could not consider allegations already subject to ongoing police investigations, such as those involving the Metropolitan Police Service.

Key findings and evidence

The inquiry, in its initial evidence-gathering phase, reviewed thousands of government documents and received written submissions from agencies and individuals. While its full findings were never published in a final report, the 2013 interim report by Sir Peter Gibson highlighted serious concerns. It noted there were cases where UK intelligence personnel were present during interrogations of detainees by foreign agencies, such as those of the United States, where harsh techniques were used. The report also identified instances where the Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service had received intelligence obtained from detainees who were likely tortured, raising questions about the adequacy of existing ministerial guidance and the so-called "conscience" of the services.

Public hearings and testimony

A significant point of contention was the inquiry's approach to public hearings. Initially, it was intended that parts of the inquiry would be held in public to ensure transparency. However, due to national security concerns raised by the government and intelligence agencies, most proceedings were conducted in private. Some NGOs, including Reprieve and Amnesty International, and lawyers for former detainees, withdrew cooperation in protest, arguing the process lacked the necessary independence and transparency. No senior government ministers or intelligence chiefs gave public testimony, with evidence largely submitted in closed sessions.

Government response and outcomes

In response to the Gibson Report's interim findings, the government announced in 2012 that a full statutory inquiry could not proceed while ongoing police investigations and potential criminal proceedings were pending. The Detainee Inquiry was effectively suspended and then formally wound up in 2013. Its work was later superseded by the establishment of the Detainee Inquiry's successor, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) inquiry into rendition and detainee treatment, which published its own report in 2018. The government also introduced updated consolidated guidance for intelligence officers on dealing with detainees overseas.

Criticism and controversy

The inquiry faced widespread criticism from human rights groups, parliamentarians, and the media. Critics, including Kenneth Clarke who had served as Justice Secretary, argued its non-statutory basis and the control of evidence by the Cabinet Office undermined its independence. The reliance on government-appointed counsel to review sensitive material was also questioned. Organizations like Liberty and Human Rights Watch condemned the process as a "whitewash." The subsequent ISC report in 2018 revealed more details, confirming that UK agencies had been more deeply involved in rendition operations than previously admitted, validating many of the initial concerns that the Detainee Inquiry was meant to address.

Category:Inquiries in the United Kingdom Category:History of human rights in the United Kingdom Category:British intelligence services Category:2010 in British politics