He has not been convicted of any crime, but has spent over 6 years in gaol despite that. That is why the English courts ruled he must be released.   If there is a crime let him be properly tried. No conviction that admits any evidence based on torture is proper (or reliable). If he is properly convicted then let him be punished in accordance with law. Nulla poena sine lege.

I am very happy that the UK benefits from the rule of law and that governments and police can (usually) be held to account by law. Without that they are not to be trusted.

English law has had three flirtations with abandonment of the rule of law: the court of Star Chamber; the divine right of kings, and peine forte et dure for those who refused to plead and were "mute of malice". All are correctly today reviled, as are those who would permit a secret police, like the Gestapo, to exist outside the law.

It is a shame however that this and the previous government have not got the courage or honesty to try someone who they say is a danger to the fabric of society. He may very well be that.

It is a shame that Jordan (or a front man) will not mount a private prosecution here (if there are alleged crimes it knows of that might be justiciable under English law) so that it could try to prove a case without resort to evidence obtained by torture.

The man may very well be all the evil things he is said to be - but how often do governments lie? If they are allowed to lie and our courts help them to do so we are all at risk of government oppression.