THE most senior law officer in Britain last night condemned the American detention camp at Guantanamo Bay as “unacceptable” and called for its closure.

Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, said that closing the camp where suspected terrorists were held was not only “right in principle”.

He added: “I believe it would also help to remove what has become a symbol to many — right or wrong — of injustice. The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol.”

Lord Goldsmith, who was addressing an international conference in Whitehall on security and terrorism, made his strongest criticisms to date of the US camp from where he negotiated the release of British citizens.

“The existence of Guantanamo Bay remains unacceptable. It is time, in my view, that it should close.”

Lord Goldsmith went on to defend the Government’s programme on tackling terrorism, including “how to deal with foreigners who were judged to pose a national security risk but who could not be deported because of the risk that they would be subject to ill-treatment on their return”.

The Government’s new powers to impose control orders were declared before Easter to be incompatible with human rights laws, he said.

But Lord Goldsmith made clear that the ruling would be appealed against, rejecting the view of Liberty, the human rights organisation, that it had left the policy “in tatters”. The decision was only at the High Court level and it dealt with a procedural point — “the level of scrutiny which the courts must apply when considering the decision of the Home Secretary” — he said.

“The heart of the policy on control orders — namely the protection of the public from the risk of terrorism by means of civil orders and the use of civil intelligence to make out the case — is untouched.”

On the memorandums of understanding being negotiated with some countries where deported terror suspects might be at risk of torture, Lord Goldsmith rejected as unfair the claim that the Government was seeking to undermine the prohibition on torture.

“It is an example of the Government’s striving to achieve the right balance between collective security and fundamental liberties.”

The Government was also intervening in a case before the European Court of Human Rights to clarify that it could take into account the safety of its citizens when deciding whether to deport someone.

“The UK Government is not proposing that the prohibition on torture should not apply to those who face deportation, nor that the extent of the risk to them should be ignored, but rather than the national security risk posed by such people should be taken into account along with all other factors.”

He also said that there were “some features of al-Qaeda- type terrorism which distinguish it from other forms of crime”. If suicide bombing was a possibility, police had to intervene early. To deal with this, the Terrorism Act created the offence of preparation of terrorist acts.

“Fundamental rights must be protected if we are to preserve our democracies. But given the current threat to our national security, we have to be flexible about how we achieve this.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers