---

Binyam Mohamed

My Lords, some two or three years ago, the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House ruled that, where a defendant claims that his confession should not be admitted as evidence because it had been obtained by torture in another country, the burden of the proof of torture rests on the defendant. Do the Government accept that, where it appears that evidence which may establish torture exists but has not been available to the United Kingdom court, the prosecution should be required to prove that the confession was not obtained by torture? That would be highly material if a prosecution of either Mr Mohamed or anybody else in a similar position was contemplated in the United Kingdom.