More than a year after receiving a Metropolitan police dossier of evidence about the secret abduction of a Libyan dissident in a joint MI6-CIA operation, the Crown Prosecution Service has still to decide whether anyone should face charges.

On Monday, the supreme court will hear an appeal to decide whether Abdel Hakim Belhaj’s civil claim for damages against the former foreign secretary Jack Straw, Sir Mark Allen, MI6’s counter-terrorism chief at the time, the Home Office and the Foreign Office should be allowed to proceed.



The quest for justice conducted by Belhaj and his Moroccan wife, Fatima Bouchar, following their 2004 rendition from the far east to Muammar Gaddafi’s interrogation and torture cells in Tripoli may be moving with frustrating slowness but it threatens to inflict fresh embarrassment on the authorities.



Speaking from Tripoli, Bouchar told the Guardian: “I just want an apology from the British government for what I have suffered. I would like the people who were responsible for kidnapping me to be put on trial. I would like to see [them] being charged. I have talked to the British police. I would be very happy to appear in a British court and testify there.”



Bouchar, who was pregnant at the time, and her husband were taken off a flight in Thailand in early 2004. He was a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an organisation dedicated to Gaddafi’s removal. They were held in what was believed to be a CIA intelligence station near Bangkok airport.



“After four days, two men and a woman came to the centre and tied me to a stretcher. My hands were tied behind me, my eyes taped shut. When I heard the sounds of an aircraft, I knew I was in an airport.



“They removed my hijab and put on a dark blue dress over me. After that I was injected with something in my left and right arms. I felt really weak and lost all my energy. One of [the abductors] put his hands on my stomach and pushed. I was pregnant.”



Bouchar and her husband eventually arrived at Tajoura prison near Tripoli. She was interrogated and her husband tortured. After giving birth to a son, Bouchar was released but forced to stay in Libya.



Proof of their ordeal emerged in correspondence with Allen discovered inside the abandoned office of Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi’s foreign minister and former intelligence chief, after the regime fell.

“There was no reason for us to be kidnapped,” Bouchar said. She and her husband have offered to settle for an apology and a token £1 payment from Straw, Allen and the FCO.



The Metropolitan police confirmed that it first passed evidence from its investigation into British officials’ role in the rendition, codenamed Operation Lydd, to the CPS in June 2014. A second file followed in December last year.



Asked whether a decision had been made, a CPS spokesman said: “The latest submission by the police was at the end of July this year and we are continuing to advise the police and to look at all the evidence in relation to what is a very large and complex investigation. At this stage, as the matter is under review, we cannot say when we will have sufficient evidence to make a final decision.”



The civil case being heard by seven supreme court justices on Monday will assess whether the foreign act of state doctrine should prevent Belhaj’s claim being pursued on the grounds that it would involve other countries. The appeal court dismissed Foreign Office objections that the case should not proceed.



Cori Crider, a director of the human rights organisation Reprieve and lawyer for the victims, said: “For years the British government has sought to shut the door of the British courts to victims of torture and state-sponsored kidnapping. This is not only a shameful attempt to deny our clients’ simple request for an apology, it’s also a shocking waste of public money and official time. The Belhaj family … deserve justice for their abuse at the hands of our government. The sooner British officials accept that, the better.”

Sapna Malik, from the law firm Leigh Day and lawyer for Belhaj, said: “The court of appeal last year recognised the gravity of the allegations raised by our clients and we are confident that the supreme court will also agree that it is the constitutional duty of the English courts to deal with such important cases despite these attempts to shield the conduct of the security services from judicial scrutiny.”



Andrew Cannon, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills and former Foreign Office legal adviser, said: “The court of appeal was clear that the case could be heard even where investigation of the conduct of a foreign state is required.



“It was clearly influenced by the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of international condemnation of torture and rendition, and a concern that unless the English courts took jurisdiction, the very grave allegations would go uninvestigated and the alleged victims would be left without recourse or remedy. The fact that the supreme court agreed to hear the appeal reflects the significance of the issues involved.”



The supreme court will also hear the case of Pakistani-born Yunus Rahmatullah, seized by British special forces in Iraq in 2004. He says he was tortured before being handed over to the US and rendered to Bagram prison in Afghanistan. He was released in June last year.



Last year, the UK government abandoned its longstanding claim that relations with Washington would suffer if Rahmatullah was allowed to sue for damages in court. It made the concession as a former US ambassador roundly dismissed the government’s case. “It is highly unlikely the US government would limit intelligence cooperation with the UK if British courts heard Rahmatullah’s or similar claims,” Tom Pickering told the Guardian.

The court of appeal ruled last year: “There is a compelling public interest in the investigation by the English courts of these very grave allegations. The risk of displeasing our allies or offending other states … cannot justify our declining jurisdiction on grounds of act of state over what is a properly justiciable claim.”



Reprieve has asked the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat), set up in 2010 to conduct criminal investigations into the treatment of detainees, to seek a full copy of last December’s US Senate report on torture for evidence relating to Rahmatullah’s case.



Ihat told the Guardian: “It would be inappropriate to give any details of lines of inquiry in an ongoing investigation. Whether and when to approach the US authorities, and the method of that approach, is an operational matter for the investigators concerned.”



Kat Craig, Reprieve’s legal director, said: “Ihat’s continued delay in requesting a full, unredacted copy of the torture report is truly inexplicable … It’s high time Ihat take concrete steps in their investigation.”

Reprieve is also concerned about Ihat passing Rahmatullah’s evidence to the Ministry of Defence before it is heard by the supreme court.



Ihat said it did not provide any information to the MoD that could prejudice a criminal investigation, “unless there is a legal obligation to do so due to parallel civil proceedings in which the secretary of state for defence is a party.”



Craig said: “How can Ihat do its job effectively if suspects are able to keep tabs on the criminal investigation against them? And how can our clients have any faith that this process might finally bring them justice? This development suggests, yet again, that the government is more concerned about evading accountability than righting the wrongs of the past.”

