UK Government Raid on Lawyer's Office in Guantanamo Case Deemed 'Deeply Troubling'
The High Court has heard that a raid by UK government security officers on a lawyer's office in the case of a Guantanamo Bay suspect allegedly tortured by the CIA with UK knowledge is "extremely troubling". The incident, which occurred in January, involved the seizure of documents from the office of Rachel Toney, a security-cleared lawyer representing alleged al-Qaeda chief Abu Faraj al-Libi.
Details of the Controversial Seizure
Despite Ms Toney refusing permission for entry, officers opened her secure safes, went through her documents, and seized them at the direction of MI6. They also accessed files on her laptop and double-deleted them, as revealed during proceedings at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Jesse Nicholls, barrister for al-Libi, argued that the government acted "unlawfully" to seize material because Ms Toney had been using it "effectively" against them, seeking an unfair advantage in the legal case.
The material related to a previous case involving Abu-Zubaydah, a Palestinian man also tortured by the CIA. The court heard that MI6 and the government's legal department moved quickly to seize the documents after learning Ms Toney planned to apply to a judge to retain and use them in the al-Libi case.
Concerns Over Legal Integrity and Special Advocates
Mr Nicholls stated that Ms Toney had been "targeted and singled out" by the "unlawful" seizure, calling the defendant's conduct "very grave and concerning". While the treasury solicitor has apologized for the trespass and agreed Ms Toney can use the material, Mr Nicholls argued for a public apology from the security services who commissioned the search.
The seizure has raised significant concerns about the integrity of the system of security-cleared lawyers, known as special advocates, who represent individuals in secret proceedings involving national security evidence. Tim Buley KC, a special advocate, told the High Court that the events "potentially have a chilling effect on the willingness of us to do our job". He added, "The appearance of this is that special advocates who do their job conscientiously and effectively will face adverse consequences," describing MI6 and the government legal department's behaviour as "extremely troubling".
Government Response and Legal Implications
The court also heard that officials at the government legal department had discussed referring Ms Toney to her vetting officer and legal regulator, and possible prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, though these suggestions were never acted upon. Mr Nicholls noted that a security officer asserted the government owned all of Ms Toney's notes on the Abu-Zubaydah material, not just the underlying documents, which could have "very serious implications" for other cases if upheld.
Mr Justice Chamberlain, presiding over the case, said he would consider "what the government's attitude is to its powers were such a situation to arise again". The government argued that Ms Toney's possession of the documents posed a national security risk, but Mr Buley countered that this did not justify the office trespass or seizure.
Government lawyer Rory Phillips KC stated they "were not suggesting that Ms Toney acted improperly in any way" by not returning the documents. In response to the "gaps" exposed, the Government Legal Department has established a "lessons learned group" to identify what went wrong and prevent recurrence. Mr Phillips acknowledged mistakes in the "timing, the manner in which it happened, and the circumstances of the retrieval", noting it should have occurred "with her [Ms Toney] present, rather than in her absence". He maintained it was not an unlawful retrieval but said the government would not repeat such a seizure.
Background and Case Status
According to a US Senate intelligence committee report, al-Libi was al-Qaeda's chief of operations, captured in Pakistan in 2005 and tortured at CIA black sites. He has been held at Guantanamo Bay since September 2006. Mr Justice Chamberlain has reserved judgment in the case, leaving the legal and ethical ramifications of the raid unresolved.
