THE international director of advocacy group Cage pledged to fight his conviction under anti-terror legislation at the Supreme Court yesterday after the High Court rejected his appeal.

Muhammad Rabbani refused to provide the passwords to his electronic devices at Heathrow airport in November 2016 in order to protect documents detailing the torture of Qatari businessman Ali al-Marri by FBI agents.

Some of the files were among a cache of 35,000 documents published by Cage last month, which named six agents involved in Mr Marri’s torture on US soil.

Mr Rabbani was convicted and given a 12-month conditional discharge in September for wilful obstruction of a search under the Terrorism Act 2000.

He was stopped under Schedule 7 of the Act, which gives police and other officials powers to stop, search and detain anyone believed to be entering or leaving Britain without the need to suspect them of involvement in terrorism.

Lord Justice Irwin dismissed Mr Rabbani’s appeal against his conviction, ruling that there was “no basis on which the legality of the stop or the request for [Mr Rabbani’s] pin and password was called into question.”

He also rejected Mr Rabbani’s arguments on the adequacy of safeguards to protect confidential material under Schedule 7.

Lord Justice Irwin referred to the case of David Miranda, who was stopped at Heathrow in 2013 carrying information obtained by US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. But he found that a January 2016 Court of Appeal ruling was “centred expressly and narrowly on Article 10 [rights] and freedom of expression for journalists” and did not apply in this case.

After the judgement was handed down, Mr Rabbani vowed to continue fighting his conviction, saying: “I knew at the time when I refused my passwords that I could be sent to prison.

“I remain convinced that preserving the principle of protecting torture survivors is the right thing, even if it carries penalties according to the law.”

He said there was nothing like the “draconian and intrusive” Schedule 7 powers “anywhere else in the Western world” and warned that the ruling “sets a dangerous precedent.

“It now means that privileged material carried by lawyers, human rights advocates, NGO workers and others is not safe, and trying to protect such information can now result in a terrorism conviction.”