Theresa May
Main Page: Theresa May (Conservative - Maidenhead)Department Debates - View all Theresa May's debates with the Home Office
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about a court ruling on Abu Qatada.
Earlier today, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission upheld Abu Qatada’s appeal against his deportation. I hardly need to tell the House that the Government strongly disagree with that ruling. Qatada is a dangerous man, a suspected terrorist who is accused of serious crimes in his home country of Jordan. The British Government have obtained from the Jordanian Government assurances not just in relation to the treatment of Qatada himself, but about the quality of the legal processes that would be followed throughout his trial. We will therefore seek leave to appeal against today’s decision.
It is important to note that SIAC ruled that the Jordanian Government
“will do everything within their power to ensure that a retrial is fair.”
The court said that
“the Jordanian judiciary, like their executive counterparts, are determined to ensure that the appellant will receive, and be seen to receive, a fair retrial.”
SIAC also said that
“if the only question which we had to answer was whether or not, in a general sense, the appellant would be subjected to a flagrantly unfair retrial in Jordan, our unhesitating answer would be that he would not.”
Those words demonstrate the extent of the co-operation between the Jordanian and British Governments in the assurances that we received.
The House will remember the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in January that Qatada could not be deported because of the risk that evidence obtained through the alleged mistreatment of two co-defendants from previous trials might be used in a new trial. I still believe that that ruling was wrong, but since then the Jordanian Government have provided the British Government with further specific assurances and information about the quality of any trial that Qatada will face, and the assurances directly address the issues raised by the European Court.
First, the state security court, which would hear Qatada’s case, is not a quasi-military court, as Strasbourg suggested, but a legitimate part of the Jordanian legal system that considers criminal cases. Moreover, the Jordanian Government have promised to ensure that Qatada’s case would be heard by civilian, not military, judges.
Secondly, on his return to Jordan, Qatada’s conviction in absentia would be quashed. He would be detained in a civilian detention centre, open to international inspection; he would have access to defence lawyers, who would be present during any questioning; and he would have the opportunity to make a fresh statement on his involvement in these cases.
Thirdly, while Qatada’s co-defendants from previous trials would be compelled to give evidence, they are both now free men, so we can be confident that they would give truthful testimony. SIAC also agreed that Qatada’s lawyers would be able to cross-examine those men during his trial. The Jordanian expert witness told SIAC that their evidence would anyway no longer be admissible, although the absence of case law and other witness statements meant that SIAC could not be sure that that was the position.
In addition, torture has been illegal in Jordan since 2006, and last year the Jordanian constitution was amended to make it clear that not only is torture forbidden, but
“any statement extracted from a person under duress...or the threat thereof shall neither be taken into consideration or relied on.”
That is a direct quotation from article 8.2 of the Jordanian constitution.
Despite these assurances, despite the determination of the Jordanian Government and judiciary to allow Qatada a fair trial, despite the change to the Jordanian constitution that expressly prohibits torture and the use of evidence obtained by torture, in the absence of clear case law, Mr Justice Mitting still found in Qatada’s favour. In doing so, we believe he applied the wrong legal test. But as a result of that decision, Mr Justice Mitting has also ruled that, from tomorrow, Qatada will be granted bail, subject to a 16-hour curfew. In addition, Government lawyers are arguing for the most restrictive bail conditions possible, and those conditions will be published by the court in the morning.
It is deeply unsatisfactory that Abu Qatada has not already been deported to Jordan. Successive Governments have tried to remove him since December 2001. He has a long-standing association with al-Qaeda. British courts have found that he
“provides a religious justification for acts of violence and terror.”
In Jordan, he has been tried and found guilty in absentia of planning to attack western and Israeli targets.
It is also deeply unsatisfactory that the European Court of Human Rights continues to move the goalposts for Governments trying to deport dangerous foreign nationals. The Court has long-standing case law in relation to article 3 of the European convention prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and successive British Governments have secured deportation with assurance agreements with other Governments, so deportations can proceed in accordance with the law, but the Court’s unprecedented ruling in January in relation to article 6—the right to a fair trial—has added yet another barrier to deportation.
Notwithstanding the fact that I still believe that the European Court’s ruling was wrong, I also believe that we have obtained from the Jordanian Government the information and assurances that would allow us to deport Qatada in compliance with that ruling and the law. That is why we disagree with today’s decision, and that is why we are seeking leave to appeal. The Government have been doing everything we can to get rid of Abu Qatada, and we will continue to do so. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This is an extremely serious and worrying judgment that means that, from tomorrow, Abu Qatada will be back on Britain’s streets. People across this country will be horrified to learn that that is the case. It also completely contradicts the Home Secretary’s assurances to this House that she had the right legal strategy and evidence to get Abu Qatada deported to Jordan. The information from security experts, the Home Secretary and judges and the courts is that this is an extremely dangerous extremist who is a threat to national security. We all want him to be deported to stand fair trial abroad as soon as possible, and to be held in custody in the meantime to keep people safe.
The Home Secretary is right to appeal against this judgment as every avenue to secure Abu Qatada’s deportation must be pursued. However, there are some very serious questions that now need to be answered about the Home Secretary’s strategy to get this deportation in place and about the action she is now taking to keep the public safe.
The Home Secretary told us in April that the best way to deport Abu Qatada was not to appeal against the European Court judgment, but to rely on evidence from Jordan in the British immigration courts, and she gave very strong assurances to Parliament and the public that Abu Qatada would be quickly removed from this country. In April she told us that
“today Qatada has been arrested and the deportation is under way.”
She said:
“I am confident of our eventual success”
and
“I believe that the assurances and the information that we have gathered will mean that we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our country for good.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c.173-178.]
Far from being put on a plane, he is soon going to be out on our streets, and if the Home Secretary’s appeal fails, he will be a free man.
It is clear now that all the Home Secretary’s promises and assurances were overblown and her strategy has fallen apart as a result of this decision. Like her, I am concerned about the SIAC conclusion given the assurances Jordan has provided, to which she rightly referred. She also rightly referred to the SIAC view that Abu Qatada will not be subjected to “a flagrantly unfair retrial”, and that is why we believe he should be deported. However, the immigration court also makes it clear that it is bound by the European Court judgment:
“all that we can do is to return to the basic Strasbourg test: has the Secretary of State established that there is not a real risk that the impugned statements will be admitted probatively? To that question…the answer must be negative”.
It is clear that the court believes there is a new test established. The Home Secretary blames that European Court judgment and says she disagrees with it, so why on earth did she not appeal against it when she had the chance to do so, and as we urged at the time?
Secondly, what is the Home Secretary now doing to get that deportation back on track? We support the appeal. We hope she will be successful in arguing that the wrong legal test has been applied, but that is not enough. Has she started further discussions with Jordan? Has she put her junior Minister straight on a plane? The immigration court has said that what it needs now is a
“change to the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
What is she doing to pursue that, or other alternatives that might overturn that court decision?
Thirdly, what is the Home Secretary doing to keep the public safe in the meantime? Tomorrow, Abu Qatada will be released on bail. Is she preparing an application for a terrorism prevention and investigation measure? That would be weaker than the control orders she chose to abolish. If her appeal fails, she will need to take further action. Under her new system of TPIMs, he will still be able to meet contacts in London, use his mobile phone, have access to the internet and only have his movement restricted overnight. We have asked her about that repeatedly, but will she please now look again at her decision to water down counter-terror powers in the light of this case?
This judgment overturns the Home Secretary’s strategy to get Abu Qatada deported and to keep him in custody in the meantime. Her confidence and complacency have proved to be a mistake. There has been a catalogue of confusion and mistakes on Abu Qatada, including the Home Secretary getting basic dates wrong earlier this year. There is cross-party agreement on the importance of deporting Abu Qatada and protecting the public. We cannot afford further confusion and mistakes. The Home Secretary needs to take urgent action now to keep the public safe, and get this deportation back on track.
Mrs May
The shadow Home Secretary made a number of points, some of which, I have to say, were either wrong or irrelevant to what we have heard today. She seems to be trying to argue that the Government have not been doing enough to deport Abu Qatada. I can assure her and the whole House that, if it was the case that this was one of those situations where it was just a question of a decision by the Home Secretary, Abu Qatada would have been on the plane on 12 May 2010. However, it is not that simple and we have to work in accordance with the ruling of the courts.
The work that we have undertaken with the Jordanians, which she referred to and seemed to brush to one side as if it was nothing, is unprecedented. The security Minister visited Jordan; I visited Jordan; and the Prime Minister has raised the issue with the King of Jordan. We have secured information and assurances that I still maintain should enable us to deport Qatada. Although the right hon. Lady was dismissive of those assurances, I will remind her, as I said in my statement, of what Mr Justice Mitting said about them. He said that the Jordanian Government
“will do everything within their power to ensure a retrial is fair.”
He continued:
“The Jordanian judiciary, like their executive counterparts, are determined to ensure that the appellant will receive, and be seen to receive, a fair retrial.”
SIAC stated that
“if the only question which we had to answer was whether or not, in a general sense, the appellant would be subjected to a flagrantly unfair retrial in Jordan, our unhesitating answer would be that he would not.”
The right hon. Lady asked whether we will continue our negotiations with the Jordanians. We are very grateful for the significant assurances the Jordanian Government have already provided. Of course, our work with the Jordanians will continue in the light of today’s judgment. The Jordanian Government put out a statement earlier today, which said:
“We understand there will be an appeal and accordingly we will work with them”—
that is, the UK Government—
“to be able to bring him back to justice here in Jordan. Concerning the fear of a fair trial for him—there were guarantees for the British government on that, but also our constitution and our judicial system guarantees him that.”
I am grateful to the Jordanian Government for that support.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of bail conditions. Abu Qatada will be subject to a 16-hour curfew. Other conditions will be determined by the court and announced tomorrow. I believe that a 16-hour curfew is as strict as the strictest of control orders, so I am afraid that what she says is not the case, and she needs to look at that issue again.
The right hon. Lady referred to the new test and to the relative merits of the article 3 and article 6 issues. Those are different matters: Governments have for a long time been able to seek assurances about article 3 —that process is mature and has existed for many years—whereas the need for assurances about article 6 emerged only because of the European Court’s unprecedented judgment early this year.
The right hon. Lady asked whether it would have been better had we referred the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court. On that, she is wrong. Her argument seems to be that the European Court—the very court that has caused this difficulty by setting up a new barrier to deportation—is the solution to the problem. Not only is that palpably ridiculous, but an appeal to the Grand Chamber would have risked our wider deportation policies—[Interruption.] I suggest that she listens to this point. An appeal would also have made it harder to deport further terrorists, had we lost the appeal. It would have been unwise, as well as fruitless.
In April, and again today, the shadow Home Secretary told the House:
“We all want Abu Qatada deported as soon as possible, under the rule of law”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 508.]
Unless she is prepared to break the rule of law, she has no solutions other than what the Government have already done. I suggest that, instead of trying to score a political hit, she supports the Government, is straight with the public and supports us in what we are doing to deport Abu Qatada.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Home Secretary will recall that she has herself urged the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. In the light of these events, is it not now time to get on with this urgently? In that way, we will be able to protect not only the public from the likes of Abu Qatada but those alleged terrorists who deserve a fair trial. Let us give them a fair trial, legislate in this country and work out our own answers to these questions, rather than leaving it to the Strasbourg Court.
Mrs May
I am tempted to refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on this issue in my last statement on human rights, because I am afraid that I am not going to depart from the answers I have given him in the past. I have made clear my position on the Human Rights Act. Work is being done on it, including by the commission looking at the possibility of a British Bill of Rights in line with our human rights requirements. That commission will report in due course. On the operation of the European Court, as he knows, we have already taken steps to ensure that the Court focuses on the complex points of law that it was originally set up to address, instead of becoming just a court of appeal in so many cases.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The whole House will share the Home Secretary’s disappointment that this matter has gone on for seven years and cost the taxpayer £1 million in legal aid, and that yet again the silks of the Home Office appear to have been outwitted by a small north London firm of solicitors. I know that she has worked hard with the Jordanians—we are grateful for that—but the Jordanian Government are the key. I understand that the king is due here on 21 November. Is that an opportunity to ask him to do what the Court has suggested, which is to strengthen and change the Jordanian criminal code? That appears to be the only obstacle to ensuring that Abu Qatada goes back. The assurances have been accepted, but I understand that the structure of the criminal code is the main problem.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is right. Justice Mitting made several references to the criminal code and to the operation of the court of cassation. He is also right that the king will be in the UK shortly. We will work with the Jordanian Government across all parts of our representations in Jordan to ensure that we get the outcome that we all want, which is the deportation of Abu Qatada. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will consider every avenue to do that.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I can see that my right hon. Friend is not pleased with the commission’s decision, but she stopped just short of personally abusing the judge, for which I am grateful to her. I assume that tomorrow morning lawyers instructed by her Department will be making an application for an expedited appeal hearing, and that the points she made in her statement are precisely those that will be made in the application.
Mrs May
Yes. I thank my hon. and learned Friend. He is right. The judge made his judgment, and we disagreed with it. Of course, we are disappointed; we think it is wrong, and that is why we will appeal. We believe that there is a point of law on which it can be appealed, and will look to expedite it.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
A very dangerous man is likely to be walking the streets of this country by tomorrow morning, and the public will simply not understand what has gone wrong. Indeed, I myself find it hard to believe that, despite having got the constitution of Jordan changed and the law changed, we are still unable to convince our own courts that those changes to the constitution and the law and the other assurances are sufficient to guarantee a fair trial. What more can be done to ensure that this man can be deported as a matter of urgency? Our legal system will find itself in a ludicrous position if this situation is allowed to go on for a moment longer.
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady is right. We are all deeply frustrated by the decision, given the strong assurances that we have received that Abu Qatada would receive a fair trial across a wide range of aspects. We believe that a point of law has been misinterpreted, and that it is therefore possible for us to appeal. We are asking leave to appeal; that is the first thing we can do. We are also talking to the Jordanian Government about what other avenues might be open to us. Ultimately, however, the problem is that the bar has now been set extremely high by the European Court, and it was that decision, which moved the goalposts, that made it harder for decisions to be made in the British courts.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
What steps has the Home Secretary taken recently to investigate whether Abu Qatada could be charged in this country?
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
The failure to secure the deportation of Abu Qatada is a massive disappointment, but the public’s mind will now turn to the public safety issues involved. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what specific measures will no longer be available to her when Abu Qatada steps out tomorrow morning, now that we have done away with the control order regime?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman’s question is misguided. We have submitted our case this afternoon, and Home Office lawyers will be arguing in court tomorrow about the bail conditions. It has always been possible to have stricter conditions under bail than under control orders. The question is therefore what bail conditions will be set, and we will argue for the strictest possible ones.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Of course, Mr Justice Mitting does have form in this area, not only with Abu Qatada but with Abu Hamza. Abu Qatada will be laughing in his prison cell right now, and in his luxury flat—no doubt paid for by the taxpayer—tomorrow. What further discussions can the Home Secretary have with the Jordanian authorities to ensure, in the light of the European Court of Human Rights’ second part judgment on evidence obtained by torture, that the Jordanian Government can satisfy not only SIAC but the ECHR and the British Government?
Mrs May
We are pursuing all avenues of discussion with the Jordanian Government to see what can be done to address the important point that the judgment has raised. My hon. Friend referred to Justice Mitting. I would point out that, although I obviously disagree with the judgment today, Justice Mitting has given a number of judgments favourable to the Government in deportation cases, so I suggest that my hon. Friend take a more rounded view of the judge’s decisions.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has highlighted the contradictions in the SIAC judgment, and she is right to seek an appeal. Members on both sides of the House are horrified at the prospect of this man walking freely around the streets of London, or indeed anywhere else in the country. Does she propose to provide further information to the Court of Appeal—perhaps, for example, in the form of a request for a personal appearance by the Jordanian ambassador—to make it absolutely clear that the assurances that she gave to SIAC can be relied on?
Mrs May
Obviously, we will look at every avenue that it would be appropriate to follow in order to uphold our case and to get what we all want, which is the deportation of Abu Qatada. If we look at the judgment, however, we can see that SIAC has been very clear about the vast majority of assurances in relation to the fair trial that Abu Qatada would receive, to his personal treatment, to his ability to have access to defence lawyers and so on. The problem lay with the one point about the admissibility of evidence and, even in that regard, the judgment refers to the fact that there would be the possibility of cross-examination in relation to such evidence. Justice Mitting still came to this decision, however. We will appeal it, and we will fight our case as strongly as we can.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concept of the rule of law, which this country played such a large role in developing, essentially involves a balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the constitution, and that the combination of a European institution, which cannot be reformed by anybody, and a philosophy that is increasingly prevalent among our own courts, which imports ideas from outside British common law and outside statute, is undermining the confidence of the public in the rule of law in this country?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised issues about which he has spoken on many occasions in the past, as have a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. What the public want is to see Abu Qatada deported. We want to see Abu Qatada deported, and we are going to do everything we can within the rule of law to achieve that. It is still open to us to ask leave to appeal. We are doing that, and we will fight for that as hard as we can. We are doing everything in our power, working with the Jordanian Government, to ensure that we can bring about what the public want, which is the deportation of Abu Qatada.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) highlighted some of the confusion that has led to Abu Qatada still remaining in the UK. However, one issue the Home Secretary raised was the weight given in the ruling to case law relating to Jordan. She also talked about agreements not being reached with other Governments. Can she say whether there is any precedent in any of those other cases where case law was not in place, but where deportations have happened?
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Bearing two things in mind—that the British Government have clearly taken unprecedented steps and bent over backwards to try to facilitate the court’s wishes in these matters; and that the judge indicated in his ruling that he did not feel that there would be an unfair trial in Jordan—are there not some inherent and unhealthy contradictions in this judgment, which clearly merit the strong and robust appeal that my right hon. Friend has indicated she will pursue in the higher courts?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. With his legal background, I am sure he will have cast his eye over the judgment to reach exactly the point he made. We feel that there is an opportunity to appeal and that there are points of law on which we can appeal. That is why we will be seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal with the strongest possible case we can put forward.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Clearly, the use of torture is illegal in Britain and the use of evidence obtained under torture is similarly illegal in this country. Does the Home Secretary not think that we would all be much better served if other countries, including Jordan, signed up to the UN convention against torture, which would make it illegal for them to use torture or any evidence obtained under it from any other jurisdiction? Until that day comes about, it is going to be difficult to deport people from European jurisdictions to those that have not signed up to the UN convention.
Mrs May
The whole point is that Jordan has made torture illegal. It has been illegal since 2006, and the country specifically changed its constitution last year to make it clear not only that torture was forbidden, but that
“any statement extracted from a person under duress…or the threat thereof shall neither be taken into consideration or relied on.”
That is from article 8.2 of the Jordanian constitution. Part of the issue in Justice Mitting’s judgment today is that that constitutional change took place last year; there is no case law that shows the operation of that constitutional change.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I have been looking at Twitter as we have been speaking, and it is obviously a highly contentious issue, as all Members agree. We want to see the back of this man, but it seems impossible to get rid of him. Without wanting to pre-empt the tabloid press tomorrow, are there any contingencies in place to try Qatada here? Is that possible in any way, shape or form, or could it be done in Europe, leaving Europe to pick up the bill for it, as this is costing a fortune? This is a question not from a legal person, but from a lay person who is also a Member of Parliament.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary clarify that stringent bail conditions will be applied similar to those previously used when Abu Qatada was on bail, which meant that he was unable to commit further offences?
Mrs May
We are certainly arguing for the strictest possible bail conditions. Justice Mitting has already set the curfew at 16 hours, which is less time than when Abu Qatada was previously on bail. We will find out tomorrow morning what the full conditions are, but we will certainly be arguing for the strictest possible conditions.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I apologise for asking exactly the same question I asked earlier this year, but it is on behalf of many of my constituents who will be totally perplexed by this situation. What would the sanctions be if we prioritised national security and just put Abu Qatada on a plane back to Jordan?
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that until the European Court of Human Rights interfered and stopped Abu Qatada’s deportation last January, British courts and British judges had always agreed with the Government that he should be deported?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right: Abu Qatada had taken his appeal through all levels of the courts here in the UK, and at every level it had been found that he could be deported. It was the appeal to the European Court that prevented his deportation, and although today’s decision is one of a British court, it has been taken against the background of a very high barrier to deportation that has now been set by the European Court.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I have listened to an hour of excuses for why we cannot deport this man. The Home Secretary wants to deport him; the shadow Home Secretary wants to deport him; the Supreme Court says he can be deported; the British people say he should be deported: just deport him, and worry about the consequences afterwards. Does the Home Secretary agree?
Mrs May
I think we have had this conversation before, or a very similar one, and I repeat what I have always said: it is my intention to do everything in the Government’s power to deport Abu Qatada within the rule of law. It is important that Ministers standing at this Dispatch Box commit themselves to operating within the rule of law.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do special circumstances apply in this case, or is a judgment of this sort sending a signal to any terrorist, on the run for crimes committed in any country that may not have a judicial system fully recognised as right up there with western standards, that they just have to make a beeline for the United Kingdom and they are safe, because nobody can deport them?
Mrs May
Judgments at the European Court have been making it harder to deport foreign nationals who are terrorist suspects or criminals, but I do not believe that this sends the message that my hon. Friend believes it does. There are some very particular aspects of this case. A trial in absentia took place regarding Abu Qatada, and evidence was allegedly obtained from mistreatment or torture, given by others in that trial in absentia. So there are particular aspects that would not read across to other cases, but that is precisely why I think it was right that we did not risk losing our deportation with assurances, which we could have, had we appealed to the European Court. There are other terror suspects whom we will be able to deport under our deportation with assurances that will not be affected by this judgment, but could have been affected by a judgment by the European Court to overturn those assurances.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents in Kettering will be horrified at today’s judgment on Abu Qatada, disgusted that this dreadful man could be at liberty tomorrow, and appalled at the rising cost of legal aid for him to defend his cause. Does my right hon. Friend know how much money has been spent on legal aid in his defence, and is there no limit to the amount of money taxpayers are being asked for to fund his case?
Mrs May
The amount of legal aid available has been a matter for the Legal Services Commission. I am not aware of the complete sum that it has allowed in relation to this. I understand my hon. Friend’s and the public’s concerns, which is why, in a more general sense, setting aside this case, we want to ensure that we can deport and extradite people more quickly than we can do today, so that we do not have people sitting in these sort of circumstances.
May I correct something I said earlier in response to another of my hon. Friends, Mr Deputy Speaker? I believe I said that at every stage the British courts previously had found in favour of deportation. I understand that under the previous Government, at one stage, the Court of Appeal found against them on deportation, but that then went to a higher court, which found in favour of deportation. There was one judgment against deportation.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The content of today’s statement will come as a huge disappointment to hon. Members across this Chamber and to the constituents we represent. I had reassured my constituents that this man would be deported. We know that the law has been changed in Jordan, and I told my constituents that it had outlawed evidence gained by torture and that the deportation was very likely to go ahead. Can the Home Secretary tell me what I should say to my constituents? What certainty can I give them that this man, who should not be walking our streets, is going to be deported?