information extracted by torture should be excluded by rule of law rather than merely afforded less weight) to suggest the contrary: “[T]here is no sufficient material which persuades us that we can conclude either that torture or other treatment contrary to article 3 of the ECHR was used or even that it may have been used…” 167. But theoretically it could happen and in that event, it is suggested, the Secretary of State would be disadvantaged in two distinct ways. Most obviously, perhaps, he would be unable to continue to detain someone whose detention he judged necessary on grounds of national security. To the straightforward response “so be it, the rule of law so requires”, I would add this. There is a certain unreality in discussing the discharge of detention orders as the legislation now stands. The power to detain suspected international terrorists under section 23 of the 2001 Act is now a matter of history. In December 2004 your Lordships in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68, declared section 23 to be incompatible with articles 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and with effect from 14 March 2005 the whole of Part 4 of the Act was repealed by section 16 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (save only with regard to extant appeal proceedings, preserved by section 16(4) of the 2005 Act). 168. No doubt the effects of your Lordships’ judgment will spill over into other court proceedings designed to provide a judicial check on the exercise of other executive powers to place constraints of one sort or another on terrorist suspects in the interests of national security—most notably appeals to SIAC under section 2 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 against deportation orders, and statutory applications to the Administrative Court challenging control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. For the reasons already given, however, it seems unlikely that the exclusionary rule concerning coerced statements, even assuming that it applies equally in these related contexts (which was not the subject of specific argument before us) will affect many, if any, individual cases. 169. The other way in which it has been suggested that the Secretary of State may be disadvantaged by your Lordships’ ruling is in the event that he has to defend himself against a civil claim, for example for false imprisonment. With regard to this possibility I find myself in strong agreement with the view expressed by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in -88-