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 immediately from the category of foreign nationals.’ However ‘upwards of a thousand individuals from the UK are estimated on the basis of intelligence to have attended training camps in Afghanistan in the last five years,’ that some British citizens are said to have planned to return from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom and that ‘The backgrounds of those detained show the high level of involvement of British citizens and those otherwise connected with the United Kingdom in the terrorist networks.’
Held: ‘But the evidence before us demonstrates beyond argument that the threat is not so confined. There are many British nationals already identified – mostly in detention abroad – who fall within the definition of ‘suspected international terrorists,’ and it was clear from the submissions made to us that in the opinion of the [Home Secretary] there are others at liberty in the United Kingdom who could be similarly defined.’ ‘ . . . we fail to see how the derogation can be regarded as other than discriminatory on the grounds of national origin.’

Judges:

Collins J, Kennedy LJ and Mr Ockelton

Citations:

[2002] HRLR 1274

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (SI 2001/3644), Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21

Citing:

Appealed toA, X and Y, and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Oct-2002
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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromA, X and Y, and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Oct-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.220327