The claimants sought damages after being made subject of orders under the 2009 Order. Both parties appealed against an order (partly closed) allowing some but restricting other disclosure and use against the claimants in court of evidence which they would not be allowed to see as to their suspected involvement in terrorism.
Held: The judge had been correct to find that the standards set down in AF applied. The Treasury’s open evidence was insufficient to constitute a case. The requirements of article 6(1) are such that the information to be provided by the Treasury must not merely be sufficient to enable the Bank to deny what is said against it. The Bank must be given sufficient information to enable it actually to refute, in so far as that is possible, the case made out against it, and if a party is dissatisfied with a decision as to what information should be disclosed in a case such as this, an appeal would, at least in principle, represent an uphill task. An appellate court would normally be reluctant to interfere with a first instance judge’s determination of what has to be disclosed to satisfy the requirements of article 6(1), although it would, of course, do so if satisfied that the judge had gone wrong in principle.
Lord Neuberger MR, Maurice Kay, Sullivan LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 483, [2010] WLR (D) 148
Bailii, Times, WLRD
Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009, European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Home Office v Tariq CA 4-May-2010
The claimant began proceedings against his employer, the Immigration Service after his security clearance was withdrawn. He complained that the respondent had been allowed by the Tribunal to present evidence he was not himself allowed to see and . .
Cited – Kadi v Council and Commission (Common Foreign and Security Policy) ECJ 16-Jan-2008
ECJ Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – United Nations Security Council . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited by:
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
See Also – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Natural Justice, Human Rights
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.409221
