The defendant had published a set of guidelines for intelligence officers called upon to detain and interrogate suspects. The defendant said that the guidelines could only be tested against individual real life cases, and that the court should not answer hypothetical questions. The objection lay to reactions to anticipated torture and mistreatment by third party … Continue reading Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister and Others: Admn 3 Oct 2011
The court was asked as to bail proceedings in the context of appeals to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Citations: [2011] EWHC 336 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 Crime, Human Rights Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430082
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
Judgment of the court necessitated by a disagreement as to the terms of the order which properly reflects both OPEN and CLOSED decisions handed down on 18 March 2015. Suffice to say that we have no doubt that the declaration which properly reflects the judgments of the court is: ‘It is declared that, on a … Continue reading The Secretary of State for The Home Department v The Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others: Admn 1 May 2015
The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial. Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act did not apply to extradition procceedings, and they might also be admissible under the … Continue reading In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997
Appeal from refusal of British nationality applications. Judges: Swift J Citations: [2020] EWHC 2867 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 2D Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.655212
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious faiths. Held: A distinction was to be made between domestic cases involving actions within … Continue reading Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 17 Jun 2004
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations. Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed. Lord Bingham stated: ‘While an oral hearing is most obviously necessary to achieve a just decision in a case where facts are … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005
Return To UK to fight Citizenship Withdrawal The appellant had, as a 15 year old, left to go to Iraq to be the ISIL terrorist group. She married an ISIL fighter and they had three children, the last one dying. Her citizenship of the UK had been withdrawn by the respondent leaving an entitlement to … Continue reading Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others: CA 16 Jul 2020
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than others, and that it was contrary to the obligations of the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 25-1; Not necessary to . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
A certificate had been granted by the Home Secretary that the applicant was suspected of terrorism, and he had accordingly been detained under special procedures. When his case had come before the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal, they had granted him bail. The HS appealed. Held: The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction was purely statutory. No statutory … Continue reading G v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interim Decision): CA 9 Mar 2004
The applicant had been detained under the appellant’s certificate that he was a suspected terrorist. Held: The fact that there were suspicions surrounding the detainee did not mean that those suspicions were necessarily reasonable suspicions as required by the Act. Though a detainee could leave this country as an alternative to detention, his safe removal … Continue reading The Secretary of State for the Home Department v M: CA 18 Mar 2004
An intention to promote terrorist activity was sufficient to found an order for deportation even though the terrorism may not be directed at any person or property in the UK. Such activity is capable of constituting a threat to national security. The concept of national security is a protean one, and any activity which could … Continue reading The Secretary Of State For The Home Department v Shafiq Ur Rehman: CA 23 May 2000
Bail conditions only after detention B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether there exists a power under the 1971 Act to grant immigration … Continue reading B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 8 Feb 2018
The three applicants required decisions as to how to proceed in the light of s6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, which permits Closed Material Procedures, to be ordered in civil claims including judicial review, and s15 of the Act, which amended the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, introducing into it s2C and … Continue reading Ignaoua, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 8 May 2014
Appeal by the Secretary of State from a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission which allowed P3’s appeal pursuant to section 2(1)(a) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse his application for entry clearance (‘Decision 2’). Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing DBE [2021] EWCA Civ 1642 … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v P3: CA 8 Nov 2021
‘This claim concerns a certificate issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the Secretary of State’) on 16 July 2013 under a power conferred by the Justice and Security Act 2013. The Secretary of State contends that the certificate has the effect of terminating the judicial review the claimant has had ongoing … Continue reading Ignaoua, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Aug 2013
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both open and closed statements to the tribunal. The open statement accepted that the organisation was … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman: HL 11 Oct 2001
Each of the three appellants, suspected of terrorist activity, objected to their proposed return to Algeria on deportation, saying that it was accepted that torture was routinely used against people in their position, and without redress. Re-assurances had been given by the Algerian government, but they would not allow any independent scrutiny. A witness came … Continue reading W (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 7 Mar 2012
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
The appellant was detained under immigration rules. He refused to provide details of his nationality and now complained of his continuing detention in the light of a finding that he was unlikely to be returnable to Algeria, that being what was . .
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant? Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004
The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission. Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic notes from the US government guaranteeing trial before an ordinary court, and that they would not be designated … Continue reading Ahmad and Aswat v United States of America: Admn 30 Nov 2006
The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing expeditons’ by those seeking a judicial review.Woolf LJ MR said: ‘on an application for judicial review there is usually … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed: CA 13 Nov 1996
British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property. It was alleged that he was a member of the IRA. In … Continue reading Regina v Mullen: CACD 4 Feb 1999
The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate. Held: The case followed on where the Anderson case left off. In these cases the judge had noted that he did not think the … Continue reading Regina v Lichniak: HL 25 Nov 2002
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political persecution. The defendants now appealed from rejection of the defendants’ claim to state immunity and … Continue reading Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others: SC 17 Jan 2017
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the decisions had probably been obtained by torture committed by foreign powers, and should not … Continue reading A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2): HL 8 Dec 2005
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice meant that it was not subject to control. The claimants said that the export was a … Continue reading Zagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others: Admn 29 Nov 2010
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in the case of the 1988 Act, of crime. The Crown … Continue reading Regina v Montila and Others: HL 25 Nov 2004
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into consideration for the purpose. Held: When a challenge is made in court to … Continue reading Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston: CA 1986
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception to state immunity. Held: The Kingdom’s appeal succeeded. The protection of state immunity was essentially a … Continue reading Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others: HL 14 Jun 2006
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended in the light of the case of ZH. Held: HH and PH’s appeals … Continue reading HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa: SC 20 Jun 2012
Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001
Closed Material before Supreme Court Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it was possible for the Supreme Court to … Continue reading Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1): SC 19 Jun 2013
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments. Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been free to rely upon section 53 to issue a certificate avoiding the requirement to disclose the … Continue reading Evans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General: SC 26 Mar 2015
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. Held: Article 5(1)(a) is concerned with the question whether the detention is permissible. Its object and … Continue reading Winterwerp v The Netherlands: ECHR 24 Oct 1979
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result would be disproportionate. The court was asked whether in order to found such … Continue reading Norris v Government of United States of America: SC 24 Feb 2010
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper scope of judicial review was limited or excluded. … Continue reading Cart v The Upper Tribunal: SC 21 Jun 2011
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the European Convention in that the decision maker was the Secretary … Continue reading V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 1999
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation (Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of the day decided that he should … Continue reading Chahal v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Nov 1996
(Hong Kong) The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting a murder. A, carrying a length of water pipe and accompanied by the defendant and four other youths, seized a man and A hit him with the pipe, causing injuries from which he died. No witness saw the defendant hit the man, who was an … Continue reading Hui Chi-ming v The Queen: PC 5 Aug 1991
The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the Convention. Held: When deciding whether an asylum applicant’s fear of persecution was … Continue reading Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran: HL 16 Dec 1987
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
