The Home Secretary need not give reasons for exclusion orders made for national security purposes. Citations: Ind Summary 28-Feb-1994, Times 16-Feb-1994 Statutes: Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 4, Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime, Human Rights Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87986
Exclusion orders were not to be accompanied by reasons and so were not judicially reviewable. Citations: Independent 27-Jul-1994 Statutes: Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 5 Judicial Review Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87992
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
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
Judges: Keegan LCJ Citations: [2022] NICA 44 Links: Bailii Statutes: Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 9(2)(a) Jurisdiction: Northern Ireland Crime Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.682811
Order to produce evidence to court to be supported by description of basis. Citations: Gazette 27-May-1992 Statutes: Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 7(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Practice Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.87341
The applicants sought, by means of the Human Rights Act to challenge the way in which the decision had been made that they should be prosecuted under the 1989 Act, arguing that section 6(2) was inconsistent with the new Act. Held: The Act contravened the Convention insofar as it made evidential presumptions which were incompatible … Continue reading Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Kebilene etc: Admn 30 Mar 1999
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved.The four applicants were arrested and detained under prevention of terrorism legislation on suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts … Continue reading Brogan and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Nov 1988
(Commission) The Commission was asked whether the retention of fingerprints or samples amounts to an interference with the right to respect for private life. Held: A distinction was made between the taking of fingerprints, photographs and records, and their retention. As to retention: ‘it is open to question whether the retention of fingerprints, photographs and … Continue reading McVeigh, O’Neill and Evans v United Kingdom: ECHR 1981
Court will not look behind Home Secretary’s assertions with regard to the needs of national security Citations: Independent 28-Apr-1995 Statutes: Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Human Rights Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87945
The appellant was northern editor of the Sunday Tribune. He had been ordered to produce notes of an interview with regard to the death of a Belfast Solicitor. Held: The original order was made ex parte, and there was no obligation on the applicant to show any error in the order. The applicant resisted disclosure … Continue reading Detective Inspector Todd Clements v Ed Moloney: CANI 2 Sep 1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused’s human rights was to … Continue reading Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square mile area, and had … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF: HL 31 Oct 2007
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
