In the wake of the July 7 London bombings, Tony Blair was full of tough talk. "Let no-one be in any doubt. The rules of the game are changing," he declared. The implication was that human-rights organisations and political opponents who objected to the authoritarian changes he proposed were at best naive and at worst risked undermining Britain's security. A central plank of his proposals was a change to the rules for deporting terrorist suspects. Under international human rights law, the UK does not deport people to countries where they are likely to face torture, persecution or death. However, Mr Blair insisted his government would negotiate "memoranda of understanding" with such regimes. In plain English, these are "no torture, no inhuman treatment" deals. So far, agreements have been signed with Jordan, Lebanon and Libya.

In the wake of the July 7 London bombings, Tony Blair was full of tough talk. "Let no-one be in any doubt. The rules of the game are changing," he declared. The implication was that human-rights organisations and political opponents who objected to the authoritarian changes he proposed were at best naive and at worst risked undermining Britain's security. A central plank of his proposals was a change to the rules for deporting terrorist suspects. Under international human rights law, the UK does not deport people to countries where they are likely to face torture, persecution or death. However, Mr Blair insisted his government would negotiate "memoranda of understanding" with such regimes. In plain English, these are "no torture, no inhuman treatment" deals. So far, agreements have been signed with Jordan, Lebanon and Libya.

Yesterday's ruling from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that two men could not be sent back to Libya because of the real risk of mistreatment, despite the deal with Colonel Gaddafi, represents a blow to the Home Office. It does not mean all such attempted deportations are doomed to failure, as witness SIAC's green light for the deportation of Abu Qatada to Jordan in February. But in this instance they are right.

On the day Britain signed its memorandum with Libya, the Foreign Office website warned of "serious concerns" about human rights in Libya. It speaks volumes that the body monitoring human rights there is chaired by Colonel Gaddafi's son. Among other cases giving cause for concern is that of five Bulgarian nurses sentenced to death for infecting Libyan children with HIV after a politicised trial, tainted by allegations of torture and regarded as a travesty. By contrast, in Britain, an independent judiciary is regarded as vital to upholding the rule of law and in reining in the worst excesses of authoritarian government. Human rights are a sham if we start drawing distinctions between torturing somebody here and sending them abroad to be tortured. The same applies to admitting evidence obtained by torture and offering tacit consent to "extraordinary rendition". It is the British government, not human rights organisations, that is naive, by expecting governments such as that in Tripoli to respect paper promises.

This is not to underestimate the challenge faced by the British government in keeping its citizens safe from a minority whose perverted interpretation of Islam leads them to attack innocent civilians. To date, the British judiciary has been better at defending the rights of terrorist suspects than prosecuting their crimes. If the two Libyans are, indeed, a major threat to security, as claimed by the British government, they must be charged and put on trial here. In this respect, this case is likely to raise again the use of phone-tap evidence in terrorist trials. The issue is not that these men cannot get a fair trial in Libya but that they cannot get a fair trial in Britain.