Abstract

Comments on the House of Lords decision in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which considered the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture in a foreign country without the knowledge of the UK Government. Reviews the facts of the case and the arguments put forward by the parties, highlighting the court's analysis of the common law prohibition of torture, its evaluation of international human rights obligations under legislation such as the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.3 and the judicial disagreements over the appropriate test for excluding evidence allegedly produced by torture. Discusses whether the decision recognises different standards for the executive and judiciary and notes its international implications