A private lawsuit between aircraft broker Sportsflight Air and aircraft operator Richmor in Columbia County New York has resulted in 1500 documents detailing the flight details of a private aircraft used as part of extraterritorial rendition being made available to the public. The case concerned a dispute over unpaid fees for the service of a Richmor gulfstream jet. Both parties were acting for DynCorp, a US government contractor.
The documents disclosed have been gathered by UK human rights group Reprieve and detail the movement of the plane, phone logs for air- to-ground phone calls and a contact stating that all flight crew were to be American born, non- naturalised citizens. The records also show that the plane stopped at Shannon en route to destinations such as Kabul and that the detainees onboard the plane were referred to by staff as "invitees" of the US Government.
The case was largely heard in an empty courtroom with no interference from the US Government.
A previous attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union against flight planner company Jeppesen resulted in the proceedings being shutdown due to "state secrets privilege".
Commenting on the disclosure of the documents, Reprieve's Legal Director Cori Crider stated "These documents give us an unprecedented insight into how the government outsourced renditions, right down to the complicated paper-trail the CIA used to cover their tracks".
Click here to read comments by Council of Europe Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg on the CIA rendition programme and European involvement.
Click here to view Reprieve's press release and sample rendition documents.
Click here to view an article from the Guardian newspaper.
In July the UK Supreme Court held that under common law it was not possible to omit secret evidence under the "closed material procedure". Al Rawi and others (Respondents) (Respondents) v. The Security Service & Ors (Appellants) concerned a preliminary issue regarding the Respondent's civil law claim for compensation from the UK authorities following his alleged detention, rendition and torture at the hands of foreign authorities.
The parties settled before the matter came before the Supreme Court. The Court continued with the hearing as it raised an important point of principle.
The Appellants argued that the evidence as part of their defence in the compensation claim could not be disclosed to the other side, given its sensitivity. They submitted that the materials should be subject to "closed material procedure" as it was contrary to the public interest. The material would be disclosed to a "special advocate", who would act in the interest of the Respondent but who could not be instructed by the Respondent.
Citing the case of R v Davis where the UK House of Lords decided that the right to be confronted by one's accusers is fundamental to common law, the Court unanimously disagreed, holding that this was not possible at common law, given the principles of open and natural justice.
In his lead judgment Lord Dyson stated "The open justice principle is not a mere procedural rule. It is a fundamental law principle". The Court noted that it would be possible for the Government to introduce legislation allowing for "closed material procedure" at a later date.
UK human rights groups Liberty and JUSTICE intervened in the case. Commenting on the outcome of the case Corinna Ferguson, Legal Officer for Liberty, stated "The Government should be humbled by this strong defence of the principles of fair and open justice. The law already provides ample protection from disclosure where there are genuine national security concerns, and the Court has made it clear that there are no compelling reasons for change. We hope ministers will now abandon proposals to introduce yet more secrecy into British courts."
Click here to view a posting on the case on the UK Human Rights Blog.
Click here to view Liberty's press release.
Click here to view JUSTICE's press release.