The Inquiry regrets the fact that we are not able to complete the task we were asked to do by the Prime Minister (as set out in his letter to me of 6 July 2010). However we recognise that it is not practical for the Inquiry to continue for an indefinite period to wait for the conclusion of the police investigations. The Inquiry has, however, already done a large amount of preliminary work, including the collation of many documents from Government departments and the Security and Intelligence Agencies. We welcome therefore the opportunity to bring together the work we have done to date. The Inquiry will therefore produce a report of our work, highlighting themes which might be subject to further examination.

This task now set for us remains an important one: it will ensure that the work we have done is not wasted and we hope that it will materially assist the future inquiry that the Government intends to establish.

Sir Peter Gibson
18 January 2012

They also stated that a joint Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Service Panel had been set up to consider whether further specific allegations of ill-treatment made to the police in relation to other named individuals detained in similar circumstances required investigation now rather than after the Detainee Inquiry.

Following the advice of the joint advisory Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Panel, the Metropolitan Police has decided that the allegations raised in the two specific cases concerning the alleged rendition of named individuals to Libya and the alleged ill-treatment of them in Libya are so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated rather than at the conclusion of the Detainee Inquiry.    

The Detainee Inquiry Panel will now carefully consider its next steps and the Chairman of the Panel, Sir Peter Gibson, will make an announcement in due course.

However, the Panel has been clear from the outset that the Inquiry should be as open and inclusive as is possible. In this vein they would like to invite comments on the broadcasting proposal, before making their final decision.

The Panel would welcome views on this issue from the media, potential witnesses, NGOs and any other groups or individuals who are interested in the Inquiry’s work.

Please submit any comments on the broadcasting proposal to secretariat@detaineeinquiry.org.uk within one calendar month (by 07 January 2012)

Letter from Sir Peter Gibson to The Guardian 26 August 2011

The Inquiry’s parameters were laid down by the Prime Minister and made public on 6 July 2010.  No one has challenged in court proceedings the legality of the Inquiry. The Inquiry will go ahead.  It will examine the relevant documentation held by Government.  It will hear the key Government witnesses.  The Inquiry offers the detainees and anyone else with evidence relevant to its Terms of Reference the only opportunity for them to  give evidence to an independent Inquiry.  

The detainees and the NGOs have alleged the involvement or awareness of the UK Government and its security and intelligence services in relation to the mistreatment and rendition of detainees held by other countries. The Inquiry would welcome such evidence. We hope they will reconsider their decision.

As set out in the Terms of Reference, the purpose of the Inquiry is to establish whether, and if so to what extent, the UK Government and its security and intelligence agencies in the aftermath of 9/11 were involved in or aware of improper treatment, or rendition, of detainees held by other countries in counter terrorism operations overseas. It is the actions and knowledge of the UK that the Inquiry is required to ascertain.

The Terms of Reference and Protocol on evidence, which the Prime Minister required the Inquiry to agree with Government, were agreed after lengthy negotiations and published this week. They are designed to ensure that the Inquiry will see and can analyse all the key evidence, speak to all the key personnel involved and report to the Prime Minister within a year, as he has stipulated.

Understandably there have been criticisms about the limited openness that is possible and about who has the final decision on what information can be shared in public. However, the Protocol provides effective procedures designed to enable the NGOs, the detainees and other members of the public to follow the Inquiry and participate in its work.

The Inquiry intends to publish on its website the centrally relevant documents as soon as is practical after the formal launch. Where there are public interest restrictions on such documents, it will seek to publish redacted versions of such documents. The witness statements of witnesses giving evidence in public will be released to the public. In relation to evidence given in private sessions the Inquiry will give careful consideration to publishing a redacted version or gist of that evidence.

The Prime Minister stated that intelligence officers would not give evidence in public. The current heads of the intelligence agencies, however, will give evidence in public session in relation to matters which can be discussed in open hearings and the Government will encourage former heads to do the same.

The Inquiry gives the detainees the opportunity to give evidence of what they have experienced. It would like to have their allegations of the UK’s involvement in their mistreatment so that their complaints can be investigated. The function of the Inquiry is inquisitorial and questions will be asked of witnesses only by Counsel to the Inquiry or by the Inquiry Panel. All who are interested in the work of the Inquiry will be able to feed in questions which Counsel to the Inquiry can put to witnesses.

Where there is dispute between Government and the Inquiry Panel in relation to the public disclosure of material, the Protocol provides for the Panel to call for formal submissions from the Government and for the Panel then to make a decision on the balance of conflicting interests. They will then send their decision to the Cabinet Secretary and he will have the ultimate word on publication. It is important to realise that, even if this Inquiry had been established differently as a statutory inquiry, the ultimate decision on what could be made public would still have rested with Government under the Inquiries Act 2005.

The Inquiry Panel are independent of Government and are determined to be as open as possible, while respecting the national security and other public interest concerns which inevitably arise in an inquiry of this kind. We do not believe that the criticisms which have been reported are justified and we hope that those who are now threatening to boycott the Inquiry will think again.