Contempt of court - Andy Worthington

Following the high court's initial ruling, a transatlantic game of cat-and-mouse ensued, as the US state department provided the judges with a few carefully calibrated concessions designed to prevent them from ordering full disclosure, and the British government protested that releasing the documents would jeopardise its intelligence relationship with the United States. When the US courts stepped in, demanding the release of the documents as the result of a ruling by the supreme court in June, which granted the prisoners constitutional habeas corpus rights and allowed them to challenge the basis of their detention, the responsibility for releasing the documents was left in the hands of the US government.

Last week, the high court met for a week to establish the latest state of play in Mohamed's case, in which, as his lawyers explained, Lord Justice Thomas was informed that the US administration had "only turned over seven of the documents to his lawyers, each heavily censored in direct violation of the agreement between the two governments".

This afternoon, Lord Justice Thomas delivered a judgment on the US refusal to release the documents, which, despite his careful language, can only be regarded as a stern rebuke to the US authorities, in which a tone of incredulity – at their arrogant and uncommunicative intransigence – was readily apparent.