The revelation came as part of a hearing in the judicial review brought by human rights NGO Reprieve and MPs David Davis and Dan Jarvis on the government’s failure to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry into UK complicity in torture and rendition.

The government argued that evidence of British involvement in torture and rendition should be kept behind closed doors and heard only in secret courts. This includes the product of a recent secret, internal-only MI6 review, which identified 15 new cases of potential UK complicity in torture and rendition, as happened to Libyan dissident Abdul Hakim Belhaj who received a historic apology from the UK in 2018. These 15 cases have never been properly independently investigated.

The 15 cases were identified by MI6 in October 2018 in the course of an internal review - after the Intelligence and Security Committee published a report identifying several cases of potential UK complicity which had not arisen in any previous investigations (including previous internal reviews by MI5 and MI6). Reprieve believes these 15 further cases – which it understands were never seen by the ISC. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report described hundreds of such cases but the individuals involved were not disclosed.

Maya Foa, Reprieve director, said: “When the government broke its promise to torture survivors, it also broke the law. And now the government is trying to push these shocking new revelations - and our call for an independent, judge-led inquiry - into secret courts. Evidence of British involvement in kidnap, torture, and rendition, must be opened up to public scrutiny so that victims can seek redress - and so that this country may not be doomed to repeat mistakes of the so-called war on terror.”

Mr Davis commented: “Last year when the government admitted that it would not proceed with its promised inquiry into torture, after years of dither and delay, I was frankly exasperated. And when I said in Parliament ‘see you in court’, I meant it. But what I meant was transparent, open court - not this un-British, Kafkaesque, secret courts process, hidden away from public scrutiny for the government to sweep any embarrassing revelations into a dark corner. We owe it to torture survivors, and to the British public, to take an honest, transparent look at this terrible period.”

Mr Jarvis said: “The UK is not, nor should it ever be, above the law. Our response to the threat of terrorism must be unequivocal, but it must also be legal. As mounting evidence has shown, that standard has not always been met. This call for an inquiry is not an attempt to damage Britain’s reputation but to rebuild it. I believe the government has a legal and moral obligation to investigate what happened, prevent it happening again, and the public has a right to know what was done in its name.”