THE five British detainees set for release from Guantanamo Bay are unlikely to be told they are to be freed until moments before they leave in early March, The Times understands.

Guards are reluctant to tell them the news that their families have been celebrating since Thursday night because they fear that it could spark trouble among the 650 other detainees. The decision means that, despite banner headlines in Britain, the detainees will be kept in the same information-free bubble as the rest of the terrorist suspects at Camp X-Ray in Cuba until their passage out has been arranged.

Talks are continuing over whether the United States Air Force or the RAF will fly the men back. They will be flown directly to an RAF base where they are likely to undergo police interviews, with lawyers present, before being allowed to see their families again. Concerns about the spectacle of relatives and supporters gathering outside the RAF base mean that the detainees are unlikely to be held for more than 48 hours.

Louise Christian, the lawyer for Tarek Dergoul, one of the detainees to be released, said: “All the families have been told was that they would be leaving in about two weeks. The principle in Guantanamo Bay is that the detainees are not told anything about the outside world so they have no idea about the fuss there has been over here about them.”

Relatives will contrast their treatment with that of a Danish detainee who is also being returned and has been promised immediate freedom.

The remarks by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, that none of the five is “a threat to the British people” mirrored the American Government’s own view, Home Office sources said yesterday. But a final decision on whether they will face charges rests with the Crown Prosecution Service, based on police evidence.

Although SO19, the anti-terrorist squad, has been investigating all nine of the British Guantanamo detainees for some time, legal sources believe that there will not be enough admissible evidence.

The five would be held for longer or transferred to a high security police station such as Paddington Green in London only if fresh evidence of active terrorist links came to light. But even Shafiq Rasul, the 24-year-old from Tipton who was captured after being shot while fighting with the Taleban in Afghanistan, did not seem to have broken any British laws, legal experts said.

Sir Nicholas Lyell, a former Tory Attorney-General, said yesterday that the men were unlikely to be tried for treason as demanded on Thursday by David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, if any were shown to have fought against British troops in Afghanistan. Sir Nicholas added: “It is likely to be that evidence obtained at Guantanamo will not pass the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the normal rules that apply in Britain.” Mr Blunkett’s remarks make it more likely that a case for compensation could be brought in the United States, Anthony Scrivener, QC, a leading human rights barrister, said yesterday. The Government’s negotiations with the United States over all nine Britons were defended by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor. He said the repatriation of five was “a good result” and said that talks would continue with the United States on the remaining four.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Tree stump 'shows image of Virgin Mary'
• BBC drops Strictly judge for younger model
• Trafalgar Square 'reduced to a spectacle'