London High Court rejects challenge against drone attacks

LONDON: The High Court in London has blocked a legal challenge of a Pakistani national who had accused the British government of illegally assisting American drone campaign in Pakistani territories by passing on information to the CIA.
Noor Khan, 27, who lives in Miranshah, North Waziristan Agency, had taken British Foreign Secretary William Hague to the Royal Courts of Justice, asking him to clarify Britain’s position on sharing intelligence for use in CIA strike.
His lawyers announced immediately after the decision that they will appeal the case. English law makes it clear that in these circumstances UK intelligence staff and those who direct their actions could be committing various criminal offences, including conspiracy to murder.
Khan had challenged the lawfulness of drone strikes and Britain’s suspected role in it. Thousands of innocent Pakistanis have so far been killed in indiscriminate attacks through unmanned drones. Human rights and legal action charity Reprieve had filed the case on behalf of Khan Noor Khan whose father Malik Daud Khan, a local Jirga member, was killed on 17 March 2011 in Datta Khel.
Through his legal challenge, Khan wanted permission to apply for a declaration that the provision of assistance by UK intelligence could be “encouraging or assisting murder”.Khan’s lawyers argued that Britain’s intelligence officials could be committing war crimes by helping to locate targets for drones.
After hearing the case over two days in October month at the High Court, the Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Justice Simon, said on Friday, “The real aim is to persuade this court to make a public pronouncement designed to condemn the activities of the United States in North Waziristan, as a step in persuading them to halt such activity.”
The judge said Martin Chamberlain, who appeared for Khan, “knows he could not obtain permission overtly for such a purpose”.He added,

“His stimulating arguments have been an attempt to shroud that purpose in a more acceptable veil.”
The ruling by Lord Justice Moses is a legal victory for Foreign Secretary William Hague, whose lawyers submitted the Khan application for judicial review was unarguable.During the hearing in October Lord Justice Moses referred to a “very moving passage” in Khan’s evidence of what life was like living with the threat of missiles “falling from the sky without warning”.
Chamberlain said a Sunday Times article in July 2010 reported that British spy agencies were pinpointing the hiding places of al Qaida and Taliban chiefs for controversial “targeted killings” by drones.
The article reported that GCHQ, the UK’s top secret communications agency, was using telephone intercepts to provide the Americans with “locational intelligence” on leading militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said the foreign secretary was now “back-tracking” and adopting a “neither confirm nor deny” policy over what was going on.
He submitted that Khan was entitled to a declaration that any UK intelligence officers who passed on information to the Americans might be “encouraging or assisting murder”, contrary to the Serious Crime Act 2007.
After the London High Court decision, Kat Craig, legal director of Reprieve, said: “CIA drone attacks in Pakistan terrorise entire communities of innocent civilians in a country with which the UK is not at war. By avoiding judicial scrutiny over drone attacks, combined with its ongoing attempts to push through secret courts, this government is showing a disturbing desire to put itself above the law. We should not be involved in secret, dirty wars, where civilian casualties are ignored or hushed up. If the government is supporting the CIA’s campaign of drone strikes which are illegal, the British public have the right to know.”
Rosa Curling, from Leigh Day, said: “We are disappointed that the court has decided not to engage in this very important issue, leaving our client no option but to appeal the decision. This claim raises very serious questions and issues about the UK’s involvement in the CIA drone attacks in Pakistan. This case seeks to determine the legality of intelligence sharing in relation to GCHQ assistance in CIA drone strikes. “
Member of Parliament for Gillingham and Rainham, Rehman Chishti MP said he was disappointed at the decision. The Conservative MP said the allegations raised by this case could damage “our international relations with Pakistan who will draw their own inferences from the government’s refusal to confirm or deny whether intelligence has been shared with the United States”.
“Currently 74% of Pakistani’s see the United States as an enemy and the lack of clarity fosters anti western sentiments, which could be a danger to our own security. Pakistan is due to become the largest beneficiary of UK aid by 2015 and this good work is also being undermined by this lack of clarity.”