Courts should not accept evidence obtained by torture abroad, a coalition of international legal groups told the House of Lords this week in the latest challenge to the government's anti-terror moves.

An amicus brief from the International Bar Association, Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) and International Commission of Jurists - whose UK member is Justice - said such evidence is inherently unreliable and an 'outrage' to civilised values.



Next month, a special seven-judge panel of the Lords - headed by the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham - will hear the appeal against the Court of Appeal's majority ruling in August 2004 that evidence obtained by agents of another country, and not procured or connived at by UK agents, is usable in UK courts. The appeal court also decided that the home secretary has no obligation to inquire into its origins.


Lawyers for the ten foreign terror suspects argue that their arrests were based on information gained through torture at Guantanamo Bay.


The brief was prepared by leading human rights silk Sir Sydney Kentridge, former CLA president Colin Nicholls QC, and 20 Essex Street barristers Timothy Otty, Sudhanshu Swaroop and Colleen Hanley. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer acted as solicitors to the associations.



They also argued that the burden of proof should be on the Crown to prove that the evidence being questioned was not obtained by torture.


Although there is little case law on this issue anywhere, the brief cites cases from Canada, the US and others - despite Lord Justice Laws in the appeal court saying there were no common law sources.


'In those cases where consideration has been given by the courts of other jurisdictions to the admission of evidence obtained under torture of a third party by a foreign state, the weight of the authorities is strongly against the admission of such evidence,' the brief concluded.


In April, a coalition of 14 legal organisations - including the Law Society, Liberty and Amnesty - also received permission to intervene.