Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this would not happen.
Held: Though in each case, SIAC had considered special materials, the House did not do so. SIAC had been established to comply with Human Rights law as it had developed. Appeals from it were on matters of law only. The commission’s procedures struck a fair balance between the public interest, to which it was required to have regard, and the need to ensure that the hearing was fair. The appellants had not been denied a fair trial by reason of the use of the closed material.
Lord Hoffmann observed: ‘There is nothing in the Convention which prevents the United Kingdom from according only a limited right of appeal, even if the issue involves a Convention right. There is no Convention obligation to have a right of appeal at all. If there is a right of appeal, then of course it must offer a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal in accordance with article 6. But there is no obligation to provide an appeal against the determination of a Convention right. The only concern of the European court with the court structure of the member state is that it should provide a remedy for breach of a Convention right in accordance with article 13. If a SIAC hearing does so, that is an end of the matter and the extent of the right of appeal, if any, is irrelevant.’
The criterion for determining whether article 6 is engaged is ‘the nature of the proceedings and not the articles of the Convention which are alleged to be violated’
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
[2009] UKHL 10, Times 19-Feb-2009, [2009] WLR (D) 60, [2009] 2 WLR 512, [2010] 2 AC 110, [2009] 4 All ER 1045, [2009] HRLR 17, 26 BHRC 90, [2009] UKHRR 892
Bailii, HL, WLRD
European Convention on Human Rights 3 5 6, Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules (SI 2003 No 1034)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent CA 14-May-1998
The claimant had brought and lost an action relating to his dismissal by the defendant, who now appealed against an order that he was not estopped from bring a second claim on a different basis namely race discrimination, disapplying the rule in . .
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1991
The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The . .
Cited – Ahmad and Aswat v United States of America Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day.
Held: . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
At HL – Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
At HL – Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 12-Nov-2012
The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .
Cited – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
Cited – Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Human Rights, Immigration
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.293985