The mother of Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Deghayes has begged people to keep fighting for justice for her son.

Zohra Zewawi's 37-year-old son has been imprisoned in the American military jail for almost four years.

She spoke tearfully of her devastation after her family lost their High Court bid to force the Government to intervene in Mr Deghayes' case.

Mrs Zewawi, 67, said: "I am pleading with anyone who can help, to all the politicians even if I just live one more day, let me see my son again.

"What is happening to him is shameful."

Lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Deghayes and two other Guantanamo inmates who are British residents will find out today if they have leave to appeal the High Court's rejection of their case that the Government has a legal and moral responsibility to try and get the inmates out.

Yesterday the judges, admitting that their decision might be "uncomfortable and unsatisfactory", ruled the court could not require the Government to formally request their release.

They said, according to legal precedent, the courts should not interfere with foreign policy.

In a joint-written judgment, they said: "That would be an interference in the relationship between sovereign states which could only be justified if a clear duty in domestic or international law had been identified...there is no such duty in the present case."

Mr Deghayes' lawyers had argued that the UK had a duty to take action to prevent torture when it is known to be taking place, as a signatory to United Nations Convention on Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights.

But the judges, referring to a previous case involving Guantanamo Bay inmate Feroz Abbasi, said according to those treaties it was only obliged to "co-operate with other states" to bring the torture to an end through lawful means.

The judges accepted that Mr Deghayes had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and that he had a "particularly strong" connection to the UK because of his refugee status.

But they said it was a matter of discretion whether or not Jack Straw should intervene.

They emphasised the Government had made it "abundantly plain" that it wished Guantanamo to close down and was in "continuous dialogue" with the US to securing a solution which, if attained, would affect all three claimants.

The Government's lawyer argued that to hinder these wider diplomatic efforts by making specific requests for three prisoners would be unhelpful and counterproductive.

The judges said although they may not agree with that, they did not have the means to properly evaluate the situation and it would be inappropriate for them to step in.

The judges said: "It is impossible for this court, without knowledge of how those discussions have progressed, to make a judgment about the way in which they can best be progressed in order to achieve the aims of UK foreign policy, which is clearly to secure closure of Guantanamo Bay."

Gareth Peirce, is a renowned civil rights lawyer whose firm is representing Mr Deghayes.

She said: "It has been three years of continuous disappointments in relation to these three men but we remain convinced that our arguments are right morally, factually and legally.

"If we don't succeed that must mean the Government and courts in this country are in breach of international and domestic obligations.

"The judges did concede our case was compellingly strong. We have no option, no choice but to press on."