9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) 118. The Appellants rely on the comprehensive prohibition in Article 15 of UNCAT, with respect to torture though not the other ill-treatment mentioned in Article 3 of the Convention. If a statement is established to be made as a result of torture, it shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings. The rule, it is submitted, includes statements made by persons not party to the proceedings and it covers the proceedings in the Commission. 119. It is submitted that the common law and Article 6 should be applied and construed so as to achieve the level of protection contemplated by Article 15 of UNCAT, with respect to torture. The Convention has not however been incorporated into English law. The approach to be applied is stated in R v Lyons & Ors. Lord Bingham stated: "13. … It is true, as the Attorney General insisted, that rules of international law not incorporated into national law confer no rights on individuals directly enforceable in national courts. But although international and national law differ in their content and their fields of application they should be seen as complementary and not as alien or antagonistic systems. Even before the Human Rights Act 1998 the Convention exerted a persuasive and pervasive influence on judicial decision-making in this country, affecting the interpretation of ambiguous statutory provisions, guiding the exercise of discretions, bearing on the development of the common law. I would further accept, as Mr Emmerson strongly contended, with reference to a number of sources, that the efficacy of the Convention depends on the loyal observance by member states of the obligations they have undertaken and on the readiness of all exercising authority (whether legislative, executive or judicial) within member states to seek to act consistently with the Convention so far as they are free to do so. 14 . Mr Emmerson however accepted, as submission (7) in my summary makes clear, that a Convention duty, even if found to exist, cannot override an express and applicable provision of domestic statutory law…. " 120. Lord Hoffmann stated: "27. In other words, the Convention is an international treaty and the ECHR is an international court with jurisdiction under international law to interpret and apply it. But the question of whether the appellants' convictions were unsafe is a matter of English law. And it is firmly established that international treaties do not form part of English law and that English courts have no jurisdiction to interpret or apply them: J H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 1 AC 418 (the International Tin Council case). Parliament may pass a law which mirrors the terms of the treaty and in that sense incorporates the treaty into English law. But even then, the metaphor of incorporation may be misleading. It is not the treaty but the statute which forms part of English law. And English courts will not (unless the statute expressly so provides) be bound to give effect to interpretations of the treaty by an international court, even though the United Kingdom is bound by international law to do so. Of course there is a strong presumption in favour of interpreting English law (whether common law or statute) in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of an international obligation. As Lord Goff of Chieveley said in Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2) [1990] 1 AC 109, 283: " I conceive it to be my duty, when I am free to do so, to interpret the law in accordance with the obligations of the Crown under [the Convention]. 28 But for present purposes the important words are "when I am free to do so". The sovereign legislator in the United Kingdom is Parliament. If Parliament has plainly laid down the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply it, whether that would involve the Crown in breach of an international treaty or not." Lord Hutton, at page 69, expressed a similar view. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough agreed with Lord Hoffmann and Lord Millett with both Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann. 121. Lyons is also relied on by the Appellants as demonstrating an already existing exclusionary rule of evidence (as to statements obtained under section 434 of the Companies Act 1985). It arises, though http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 26/113