While the government of Britain upholds the principle of the right not to be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment (UNCAT and CRA 1988 section 134), the proliferation of exceptions, such as the assertion that excessive force does not reach the threshold of severe pain and therefore is not considered torture, raises profound concerns. These exceptions, rather than safeguarding human rights, create a dangerous precedent that undermines the integrity of the prohibition against torture.
By establishing arbitrary thresholds or criteria to define torture, authorities risk legitimizing practices that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of international human rights law. Such exceptions effectively weaken the protections afforded to individuals, allowing for the erosion of fundamental rights under the guise of legal interpretation.
In essence, the exceptions become a means through which crown servants evade accountability and sidesteps its obligations to uphold human dignity. Rather than confronting the reality of torture and inhumane treatment, these exceptions serve to obscure and justify systemic abuses, perpetuating a cycle of impunity and injustice.
It is imperative that we challenge the normalization of such exceptions and reaffirm the absolute prohibition against torture and inhuman treatment. The integrity of our legal and moral frameworks depends on our unwavering commitment to upholding the inherent dignity and rights of all individuals, without exception.
One fundamental issue to raise at all levels is the perception of the meaning of torture against its actual meaning in law.
Let’s break down the concept of conflating the perceived meaning of torture with the legal definition under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), using a simple analogy and its incorporation into English Law via the Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 134:
Imagine you’re discussing the concept of theft. In everyday conversation, when someone mentions theft, you might immediately think of someone stealing a car for personal gain. However, in the eyes of the law, theft has a specific legal definition. For instance, if someone takes a car without the owner’s consent but intends to return it later, it might not legally constitute theft but rather “Taking and driving away without the owner’s consent.” This distinction is crucial because theft requires the intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property.
Similarly, when discussing torture, there’s often a tendency to focus solely on extreme acts like pulling out fingernails to extract information or force a confession. While such acts certainly constitute torture, the legal definition under UNCAT is much broader. Torture includes any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes such as obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, or discrimination.
By conflating the perceived meaning of torture with its legal definition, we risk overlooking other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment that may not involve physical violence but still inflict severe harm on individuals. Just as recognizing the nuances of theft helps ensure appropriate legal responses, understanding the broader definition of torture is essential for protecting human rights and holding perpetrators accountable for all forms of abuse.
In the case of Charlie Staple there was an option to issue a fixed penalty notice. In most cases these were all discontinued. However the officers decided to metre out their own form of Justice, a beating and the process of court causing immense suffering. This arbitrary treatment coming under – punishment, intimidation, or discrimination.