The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
Held: The Orders must be set aside. ‘It is I think obvious that this procedure does not begin to achieve fairness for the person who is listed. Governments may have their own reasons to want to ensure that he remains on the list and there is no procedure which enables him to know the case he has to meet so that he can make meaningful representations.’ The UN orders required allowance to be made for basic living expenses. Having chosen to I=use an Order in Council it was necessary that the Order should go no further than required by the UN resolution. The order was phrased to affect a wider range of people than those provided for by the UN resolution. Although judicial review provided a remedy to those subject to the orders, it was inadequate because no mechanism was provided for consideration of all the evidence on which te decision to list the applicants was based. The orders also created new criminal offences which again went beyond what was required under the resolution. The subjects could be required to obtaina certificate from the respondent before borrowing a friend’s car to collect groceries, and again to purchase an Oyster card.
Collins J
[2008] EWHC 869 (Admin), Times 05-May-2008
Bailii
Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, Terrorism ( United Nations Measures) Order 2006, United Nations Act 1946, Human Rights Act 1996, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 17 18
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd (In Provisional Liquidation) v Maxwell and Another CA 13-May-1992
A company liquidator applied for an order under sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 that a director should disclose information to that liquidator. The Director objected that to do so would infringe his privilege against . .
Cited – In Re Boaler CA 1915
The court was asked whether the 1896 Act which permitted a court to make an order that a person could not institute proceedings without the leave of the court, applied to the institution of criminal proceedings.
Held: It did not. Scrutton J . .
Cited – Rex (at the prosecution of Arthur Zadig) v Halliday HL 1-May-1917
The applicant was German born but a naturalised Englishman who complained of having been interned by a regulation made under the 1914 Act. He said that the regulation was ultra vires.
Held: The appeal failed (Lord Shaw dissenting). The House . .
Cited – Chester v Bateson 1920
A Regulation brought in under the 1914 Act prohibited the bringing of possession proceedings against a munitions worker without the consent of the Minister.
Held: The prohibition was unlawful. It was a grave invasion of the rights of the . .
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
Cited – Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte John Witham Admn 7-Mar-1997
If subordinate legislation cannot be construed in a way that makes it compatible with fundamental rights, it will be declared ultra vires. Rules which disallowed exemptions from court fees to a litigant in person on income support were invalid. They . .
Cited – Kadi v Council and Commission ECFI 21-Sep-2005
ECJ (Common Foreign and Security Policy) Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 24-Jul-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .
Cited – Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte Lightfoot Admn 31-Jul-1998
The applicant wanted to present a petition so as to obtain a declaration of bankruptcy from the court but, being in debt to the tune of nearly andpound;60,000, she could not afford the deposit required by the court of andpound;250.
Held: The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
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 . .
Cited – The Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Cited – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Constitutional, Human Rights
Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.267083