Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 of Convention scheduled to United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998 — United States of America seeking extradition of appellant to stand trial in State of Missouri for premeditated murder — Appellant facing mandatory life sentence without eligibility for parole if convicted in United States — State governor having power of pardon or commutation — Penalty in United Kingdom for same offence — Relevance — Whether mandatory life sentence without eligibility for parole constituting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Philosophical arguments — Scope of Article 3 of Convention — Legal authorities — European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence — Whether irreducible sentence infringing Article 3 of Convention — Whether sentence reducible de jure and de facto — Distinction between torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — What constituting inhuman and degrading treatment — Absolutist approach — Relativist approach — Relevance of domestic or foreign context — Relevant factors — Relevance of desirability of extradition — Whether extradition order incompatible with Article 3 of Convention — Whether extradition order contravening Section 6(1) of United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998

Extradition — Extradition Treaty between United Kingdom and United States of America — United States requesting that United Kingdom extradite appellant to stand trial in State of Missouri for premeditated murder — Appellant facing mandatory life sentence without eligibility for parole if convicted in United States — State governor having power of pardon or commutation — Penalty in United Kingdom for same offence — Relevance — Whether mandatory life sentence without eligibility for parole constituting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Whether sentence violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — United Kingdom Contracting State to Convention but not United States — Whether extradition order incompatible with Article 3 of Convention

Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Interpretation — Scope — Article 3 of Convention prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Distinction between torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — What constituting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Absolutist approach — Relativist approach — Relevance of domestic or foreign context — Minimum level of severity — Relevant factors — Relevance of desirability of extradition — Appellant facing mandatory life sentence without eligibility for parole if extradited to United States of America and convicted of premeditated murder — Whether sentence constituting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence — Whether extradition order incompatible with Article 3 of Convention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 incorporating Article 3 of Convention into United Kingdom law — Appellant facing mandatory life sentence without eligibility for parole if convicted in United States upon extradition by United Kingdom — Penalty in United Kingdom for same offence — Relevance — United Kingdom Contracting State to Convention but not United States — Obligations under Convention — Whether irreducible sentence violating Article 3 of Convention — Legal authorities — European Court of Human Rights — In United Kingdom — Whether extradition order incompatible with Article 3 of Convention — Whether extradition order contravening Section 6(1) of Human Rights Act 1998 — The law of England

Aliens — Immigration and deportation — Deportation of non-national to State of nationality — Whether lawful — Mr Othman deemed to be danger to national security in United Kingdom — Deportation order authorized by Home Secretary — Non-enforcement of deportation order pending outcome of European Court of Human Rights proceedings — Strasbourg judgment — Subsequent developments — Home Secretary refusing Mr Othman’s request to revoke deportation order — Special Immigration Appeals Commission allowing Mr Othman’s appeal — Home Secretary appealing judgment of Commission — Whether Commission had erred in law

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Prohibition on use of evidence obtained by torture — Test identified by Strasbourg Court — Whether real risk of flagrant denial of justice if Mr Othman retried in Jordan — Whether Special Immigration Appeals Commission erred in elevating requirement that burden of proof be placed on prosecutor into determinative factor — Whether Commission’s assessment of facts irrational — Whether Commission failing to consider question of risk in the round — Evidence that would be used in retrial — Risk that evidence obtained by torture — Risk that evidence would be admitted at retrial — Whether Commission properly assessing risk — Whether Commission had erred in law

Human rights — Prohibition of torture — Torture universally abhorred as an evil — Whether risk evidence obtained by torture — Whether risk evidence would be admitted at retrial — Whether real risk of flagrant denial of justice if Mr Othman deported to Jordan to face retrial — Whether deportation would violate Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Lawfulness of deportation

Terrorism — Deportation — Suspected terrorist deemed to be danger to national security in United Kingdom — Relevance — Deportation order for Mr Othman to return to native Jordan — Whether lawful — Whether deportation would violate Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — The law of England