The court addressed the extent to which the admission of closed material was compatible with the fair hearing requirements of article 5.4, challenging lawfulness of detention, which imported the same rights as article 6.1 in its criminal aspect. The commission had made a declaration on incompatibility. Held: Non-disclosure of evidence could not properly go so … Continue reading A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Jan 2008
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
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
Open determination on the second review of the certificate issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the case of A under section 21(1) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Judges: Justice Ouseley Citations: [2005] UKSIAC 1/2002 Links: Bailii Statutes: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21(1) Immigration, Crime Updated: … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 28 Feb 2005
Judges: Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Royce Citations: [2003] EWHC 2846 (Admin) Statutes: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21 Prisons, Human Rights Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188274
The applicants challenged their detention without trial as foreign nationals suspected of terrorist associations. The Home Secretary considered ‘that the serious threats to the nation emanated predominantly (albeit not exclusively) and more immediately from the category of foreign nationals.’ However ‘upwards of a thousand individuals from the UK are estimated on the basis of intelligence … Continue reading A, X and Y, and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 30 Jul 2002
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 did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004
The defendant had had responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute a company suspected of serious offences of bribery and corruption in the conduct of contract negotiations. The investigation had been stopped, alledgedly at the instigation of the government of Saudi Arabia, with a threat of ceasing co-operation in security arrangements. Held: The rule of … Continue reading Corner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Another: Admn 10 Apr 2008
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence used to justify their detention was derived from practices involving torture by the US … Continue reading A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Aug 2004
The court considered complaints by the applicants as to the system of control orders imposed on them. Citations: [2008] ECHR 421, 3455/05 Links: Bailii Statutes: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, European Convention on Human Rights 3 5.1 5.4 Jurisdiction: Human Rights Citing: Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Jan-2008 The … Continue reading A and others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 May 2008
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and questioned whether they had has an impartial judge, he having also conducted … Continue reading O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2: SC 13 Jun 2013
(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 restrictions in place. Assurances had been given by the home nations that on return they would not … Continue reading A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009
(Scotland) The appellant had been interviewed by police without being offered access to a solicitor. He complained that the interview and information obtained only through it had been used to found the prosecution. Held: The admission of the evidence may not infringe the defendant’s human rights. However, there is no absolute rule that the fruits … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Advocate v P: SC 6 Oct 2011
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had become clear that a continued investigation would threaten co-operation between the UK and Saudi … Continue reading Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office: HL 30 Jul 2008
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 . .
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
