CLAIMS that a Scottish citizen was detained and tortured after the UK intelligence service tipped off Indian authorities are to be examined in a secret court.
Jagtar Singh Johal – also known as Jaggi – has been imprisoned under India’s anti-terrorism laws since he was arrested in the country in November 2017.
He is accused of helping to fund a Sikh-on-Hindu assassination plot – a claim he has strongly and consistently denied.
The West Dunbartonshire local faces nine charges, including conspiracy to murder (an offence which can result in a death sentence).
However, despite being detained for more than five years, he is still awaiting trial.
The United Nations (UN) Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has said that Johal’s detention “lacks legal basis” and claimed he has been subject to torture.
READ MORE: Jeremy Hunt U-turns on proposed cut to support with energy bills
Now, Johal’s lawyers say that an anonymous case study published in an annual report by the UK’s Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office bears considerable similarities to the Scottish prisoner's case and may show that the UK handed over information about Johal to Indian authorities.
The 2018 annual report, which was published in 2020, set out a case study which details how MI5 and MI6 passed information about a British national to a “liaison partner”.
The national in question then told officials at the British consulate that he had been tortured before the detention was raised with the UK prime minister at the time.
Although the individual is not named in the report, Johal’s lawyers from the firm Leigh Day said the similarities are striking and that the timeline matches up.
Indeed, reports in the Indian press informed by Indian police briefings suggest that information on Johal was handed over by a UK source.
The lawyers are now seeking a court apology from the UK Government over its handling of the case.
However, officials from the Foreign Office have refused to confirm or deny the transfer of any information, saying it would not be within the national interest to do so.
Their defence claim in response to Johal’s lawyers also casts doubt on Johal’s allegations of torture, saying he looked “fine”.
But Johal’s brother, Gurpreet, says that at the time of this description he was told by consular staff that Jaggi could not speak freely and had whispered to them about mistreatment.
This is despite the fact that the Foreign Office has previously accepted the torture allegations to be truthful, with an official saying in an e-mail to Gurpreet in 2017 that Johal had whispered to him about “mistreatment”.
"For years, Ministers and consular staff have been telling me they take Jagtar's torture claims seriously and that there should be an independent investigation," he said.
"So for the lawyers to question that, now that it's come out that Britain's intelligence services might have played a role in his abduction, is very hurtful. It's at times like these that I wonder if they care about my brother at all."
READ MORE: Nato 'preparing for new theatre of war' in Pacific with Aukus deal
Former Conservative home secretary David Davis said: “This case raises troubling questions about the role played by the UK’s intelligence services in the abduction and torture of a British citizen overseas.
“It is telling that the government is willing to say nothing at all about what happened to Jagtar but has sought immediately to move the case into a secret court.
“I am also disheartened to see the government casting doubt on Jagtar’s very credible claims of torture and mistreatment, when the [Foreign Office] has raised these so many times with the Indian authorities.”
A date is yet to be set for the hearing.
We previously told how Foreign Secretary James Cleverly refused to commit to seeking the release of Jaggi in January this year.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel