[3] On behalf of Rahmatullah, lawyers from the human rights group Reprieve argued that the UK government should apply pressure on the US government to release him and that a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum et recipiendum issued by the Court of Appeal should apply to him based on the memorandum of understanding.

The Supreme Court ruled that the detention of Rahamatullah at the US Bagram prison in Afghanistan was unlawful and at least prima facie a breach of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.

[5]However, by a 5-2 majority the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom dismissed the appeal of the human rights group Reprieve, stating:[6] The majority accepts that there were shortcomings in the letter from the US Defense Department dated 8 February 2012 in that it did not address either of the grounds on which the UK appeared to have a right to demand his transfer back into its custody.

[6]However, in a dissenting judgment Lady Hale and Lord Carnwath stated: "Where liberty is at stake, it is not the court's job to speculate as to the political sensitivities which may be in play.

"[1] Writing in The Guardian the journalist and lawyer Joshua Rozenberg praised the dissenting judgment of Lady Hale and Lord Carnwath, arguing that the British government should have tried harder to secure Yunus Rahmatullah's release.