B had been under arrest on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, but had not revealed his identity, in contempt of court orders to do so, so that the respondent was unable to secure a destiny for his deportation. He had been sentenced to four months imprisonment for this contempt by the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal (SIAC). B appealed saying that the sentence infringed his article 3 and 8 rights, since imprisonment would lead to a revival of a medical condition, paranoid psychosis through refusing medication.
Held: The appeal failed. The sentence was correct, even if there had been errors in how it had been reached, an appeal court could in an appropriate case redetermine the sentence. In this case there was no need for an new investigation.
Committal in such a case was appropriate where it was used to ensure compliance. It was not relevant that the subject was already subject to stringent restrictions on his freedom. The approach of the court of appeal had been punishment rather than an attempt to secure compliance. Similarly, SIAC had imposed the sentence out of consideration of the seriousness of the offence. Given that error, it was not wrong for the Court of Appeal to have reconsidered the sentence rather than to have remitted the case.
In general it would be necessary to remit such a case only where a fresh investigation of the facts was required.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 4, [2013] 1 WLR 435, [2013] WLR(D) 29, UKSC 2011/0186
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – B v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment of four months imposed for his refusal to reveal his true identity. He was in custody suspected of terrorist activities. The identity he had given had been shown to be false, and the Algerian . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and others ChD 2-Nov-2010
The court consider its sentence on one of the defendants found to be in contempt of court.
Held: Mr Kythreotis was sentenced on the basis that the contempt had been purged, without making any finding as to whether there had been full and . .
Cited by:
See Also – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.470663