COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONCLUDES REPORT OF UNITED KINGDOM
Press Release
HR/4232
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONCLUDES REPORT OF UNITED KINGDOM
19951120 GENEVA, 17 November (UN Information Service) -- The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded consideration of the second periodic report of the United Kingdom by hearing the responses of that country on its compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.In its response, the United Kingdom delegation assured the Committee that the Government did not insist upon compulsory expulsion of asylum seekers, particularly if there was already a family attachment within the Kingdom. British law prohibited any form of discrimination on the basis of race or sex, the delegation said in reference to the question of alleged ill-treatment of ethnic minorities by the police.
The consideration of the report of Armenia scheduled for Monday was postponed until the next session.
Responses by United Kingdom
The United Kingdom delegation, headed by the Assistant Under-Secretary at the Home Office, Bob Morris, told the Committee that there was no deliberate use of torture in the territory. However, certain abuses were attributed to individuals. Such allegations had been brought before local courts and their perpetrators penalized and the victims rehabilitated. The United Kingdom believed that torture was a heinous act and had denounced its practice on its territory.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994, which contained provisions to allow the courts to draw inferences from the silence of defendants in a limited set of circumstances, was enacted on 3 November 1994. It enabled a court to draw such inferences as might appear proper from the failure or refusal of the accused to account for his presence at a particular place at the time of arrest. A suspect of any crime had the right to remain silent and was not compelled to provide evidence. The principle of presumption of innocence remained effective in all circumstances. The police had to notify the suspect about the consequences of remaining silent.
With respect to alleged police ill-treatment of people of colour or ethnic minority, the delegation stated that since discrimination was strictly prohibited by British law, that segment of the population was not particularly exposed to discrimination. Police stops and searches were continuously monitored and any abuse was repressed through disciplinary measures. Furthermore, ill-treatment in police custody was investigated and those who had been found guilty could face dismissal or other severe measures. As a preventive measure, training and information on minority issues was normally given to police officers. Any person had the right to bring complaints of police maltreatment and demand compensation as the victim of an illicit act.
Concerning expulsion of asylum seekers and their detention before extradition, the delegation assured the Committee that the United Kingdom did not particularly insist on the departure of an asylum seeker whose case was rejected if he had family affiliation within the territory. However, the expulsion was directed to a third safe country, one which had to be a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The delegation regretted that the use of force in immigration cases resulted in the tragic death of one person. Any detention of asylum seekers whose plight was rejected was in order to facilitate the expulsion procedure. However, ill-treatment by the police was subject to disciplinary and penal measures. All detainees were entitled to counselling and other assistance.
To the question of public power transfer to the private security companies, the delegation noted that the high standard and quality of the private sector had won the confidence of the Government. That was why the management of four prisons was entrusted to private security enterprises, which gave high quality service. Strip search after closed hours in prisons was a preventive measure to avoid any risk of introducing dangerous goods into the prisons.
With regard to emergency provisions in Northern Ireland, despite the progress made since the cease-fire, confidence in the permanence of the peace had yet to be fully established and the time had not yet come to remove the protection of the emergency legislation. Furthermore, in the light of the paramilitary cease-fire, the United Kingdom had decided to review the future need for counter-terrorist legislation, including the continuing need for the Northern Ireland emergency legislation.
Any allegation of ill-treatment of prisoners was wholly unacceptable to the Government, said the delegation. There had been five recorded allegations of assault during interview this year, as against 97 last year. There had been no such allegations since last June. The Independent Commissioner for Holding Centres reported that, after 26 unannounced visits last year, he had no cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in custody.
- 3 - Press Release HR/4232 20 November 1995
As regards Hong Kong, the Joint Declaration of Sino-British Agreement had guaranteed the implementation of the Convention once the territory was handed over to China by July 1997, the delegation affirmed.
Remarks by Committee Members
In preliminary concluding remarks, the Committee expressed several concerns, including the practice of rigorous interrogation of detainees under the emergency powers, which might sometimes breach the Convention. The methods adopted in forcibly returning persons under deportation orders; the rate of suicide in prisons and places of detention; the renewal of the emergency legislation; the practice of returning asylum seekers; and the standards of detention of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong were among the concerns of the Committee. It recommended that the United Kingdom Government undertake appropriate measures to address these concerns.
* *** *