The applicant challenged regulations brought in by the respondent providing for foreigners suspected of terrorism to be detained where a British national suspect would not have been detained. The respondent had issued a derogation from the Convention for this purpose.
Held: The people detained were those who could not be returned to their own country for fear of persecution. The reasons for detention were ones of suspicion only. The order was discriminatory, but was set against a background of a national emergency following the terrorist attacks in September 2001. A court should be careful before seeking to challenge a conclusion of the Respondent relating to matters of national security. A non-national did not enjoy the same rights as a national. The discrimination was real but not unjustified. Proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission are not criminal proceedings for the purposes of Article 6. The result is that Article 6 (2) and (3) do not apply.
Judges:
Woolf, LCJ, Brooke, Chadwick LLJ
Citations:
Times 29-Oct-2002, Gazette 28-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1502, [2004] QB 335
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights Art 15, Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (2001 No 3644), Terrorism Act 2001
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Appeal from – A, X and Y, and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 30-Jul-2002
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – 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 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 . .
Appealed to – A, X and Y, and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 30-Jul-2002
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 . .
Appeal from – 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 – MB, Re, Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB Admn 12-Apr-2006
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.177834
