A and others v HM Treasury; G v HM Treasury: CA 30 Oct 2008

The Treasury appealed against an order quashing its own 2006 Orders, giving effect to the obligations on the United Kingdom as a member of the United Nations to ensure that the assets of an individual designated by the UN were to be subject to severe financial restrictions.
Held: The Orders in Council made under the 1946 Act giving effect to UN resolutions were effective subject to certain conditions. In particular there was a need to show reasonable cause to suspect involvement in terrorist activities, and proper opportunity to object to and answer any allegations made.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘There is no power to appoint a special advocate in proceedings arising out of an order [made under the 2006 Order]. However, as I see it there is no reason in principle why a special advocate should not be appointed in a particular case. The authorities show that in an appropriate case the court would have the power to authorise or request the use of a special advocate, see in particular the decision of the House of Lords in Roberts . . where it was held that the court had power to do so even though it was not sanctioned by Parliament. Whether it should do so would depend on the particular circumstances of the case. It has very recently been held by the Divisional Court in Malik . . that the court has power to ask the Attorney-General to appoint a special advocate or that it should only do so in an exceptional case and as a last resort. . ‘ and ‘the court has power to order a special advocate. In most cases such an advocate should be able to ensure that the individual will receive a fair hearing. In other cases the direction would have to be discharged, see the reasoning of the House of Lords in the MB case. In either case, the interests of the individual will be protected.’
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sedley LJ, Wilson LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 14, [2009] 2 All ER 747, [2009] ACD 16, [2009] 3 WLR 25
Bailii, Times
Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, United Nations Act 1946
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
Appeal fromHM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
CitedAl 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 . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.277356