The attorney general's decision to call in police to investigate the role allegedly played by British intelligence officers in Binyam Mohamed's unlawful detention and torture follows a series of battles fought on his behalf in the courts in the UK and US for almost four years.
After the government's lawyers in one case referred evidence of possible criminal conduct by MI5 officers to home secretary Jacqui Smith, and she passed it on to the attorney general, yesterday's decision was probably inevitable.
Mohamed's lawyers suspect Lady Scotland called in the Metropolitan police because she had little choice, rather than because ministers were keen to find out more about the involvement of officials serving with a government agency in the alleged mistreatment of a British resident. The first sign that the police response may not be swift came with Scotland Yard's statement that a decision about how to proceed would be taken "in due course".
Whatever action the police eventually take, the attorney general's announcement will do little to silence the growing clamour for an independent inquiry into the post-9/11 government policy that is now known to have been devised, in secret, to enable British intelligence officers to interrogate detainees being held by known torturers.
Mohamed was detained and tortured in Pakistan in 2002, and questioned by MI5 before being "rendered" to Morocco, where he says he suffered worse torture. At one point he claims his genitals were slashed with a scalpel.
During one case brought to the high court in London on Mohamed's behalf last year, it emerged that some of the questions put to him by the Moroccan torturers were based on information that was passed to the CIA during a meeting at MI5's headquarters, Thames House. Mohamed was subsequently flown to Afghanistan, where he claims he was tortured by Americans, and then moved to Guantánamo. It was from there that he was finally freed last month, and returned to the UK.
The MI5 officer who interrogated Mohamed in Pakistan told the court that he was operating in line with a policy that had been "discussed at length by security service management legal advisers and government".
Since that interrogation, British citizens have been held in Pakistan at the request of MI5, and allegedly tortured before and after questioning by British intelligence officers. Lawyers for these men suspect the policy that allowed British officials to interrogate men such as Mohamed, who claim they were tortured after being detained at the request of Americans, led to the facilitation of torture during British counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere.
In a tacit acknowledgement that something has gone badly wrong, Gordon Brown told the Commons last week that "the guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel about the standards that we apply during the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas" was to be rewritten and then made public.
That task has been given to the Intelligence and Security committee (ISC). According to Lady Neville-Jones, the shadow security minister, the ISC had not previously seen the existing guidance.
There are questions about the suitability of the ISC for the task it has been handed by Brown.
Its members are chosen by the prime minister, meet in secret and are traditionally chaired by former ministers who have previously been responsible for authorising MI5 or MI6 activities. The current chair is Kim Howells, who was Foreign Office minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism during much of the period that the abuses took place.
Among those who insist that what is now needed is an independent inquiry, rather than an ISC review, are Lord Carlile of Berriew, the government's independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, and David Cameron.
Professor Manfred Nowak, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, has accused Britain of trying to conceal "illegal acts".
On Tuesday they were joined by 13 peers from all the main parties, including Lord Howe, foreign secretary in the Thatcher government, Lord Guthrie, former chief of defence staff, Lord Hannay, former ambassador to the UN, and Lord King of Bridgwater, a former Conservative defence and Northern Ireland secretary who was the first chair of the ISC. In a letter to the Times, the peers said that although the government has repeatedly denied that it condones torture, "the conflict between evidence and official denials is stark, and is undermining trust in our stated commitment to human rights".
Andrew Tyrie, a Conservative MP who has campaigned for years on behalf of victims of torture, said: "We need a judge-led inquiry - only a judge-led inquiry can enable us to draw a line under all of this, and give the public confidence that we will finally get to the truth on rendition."
Reprieve, the legal charity that represents Mohamed, added: "There remains an urgent need for an independent review of the government's conduct in the 'war on terror'. Investigating this individual case will not answer the question of whether the government has been involved in the systemic rendition and abuse of prisoners."
Opposition MPs say they will continue to press for an independent judicial inquiry after the next election. Tory leader David Cameron said: "I don't think the government is doing enough to reassure Britain's good name and to get rid of this potential stain that hangs over us."
Former shadow home secretary David Davis said yesterday that an inquiry should examine the so-called James Bond clause - section seven of the Intelligence Service Act 1994 - that allows foreign secretaries to issue warrants giving British intelligence officers immunity in the UK for any crimes they commit overseas. "It's vital that this isn't turned into a scapegoating exercise for some junior member of MI5, when the authorisation procedures put in place in 1994 were designed to ensure that the foreign secretary himself or herself made the decisions about breaking the law," he said.
Binyam Mohamed's statement
I'm very pleased that there's going to be an independent investigation. I remain concerned that the investigations shouldn't just focus on the small people and that one agent shouldn't be the scapegoat for what was a government policy, and if indeed they do try to scapegoat Agent B, I would consider testifying on his behalf, because it's very important that we get to the truth for everyone in the future. I understand that the investigation will include the people directly responsible for the torture, the Americans, and this is obviously very important. The big difficulty faced by the police will be whether the Americans will cooperate by providing evidence that they consider classified, and obviously the investigation can't reach the truth without the Americans providing their complete side of the story. I look forward to cooperating fully with the Metropolitan police.
