The Secretary of State appealed a declaration that the restrictions imposed on the complainant under the 2005 Act were an infringement of his human rights, and a declaration of incompatibility as regards section 3.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The availability of a judicial review of the orders made was sufficient to provide a protection. The orders would impinge on the human rights of those subject to them, but the judge had concluded that the judicial protection was insufficient. In fact the Act required the judge to do what was necessary to protect the subject’s human rights. The Home Secretary had to have grounds for suspicion, and to consider the order to be necessary. His greater factual knowledge must require some deference from the courts, but the courts must give intense scrutiny to decide whether the matrix of facts and suspicions justified the order. That exercise was not the same as judging them against a standard of proof. European jurisdiction accepted that closed material might be used subject to safeguards, and the system of special advocates and rules of court provided adequate safeguards.
Judges:
Lord Phillips CJ
Citations:
Times 18-Aug-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1140, [2007] QB 415
Links:
Statutes:
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 3, Human Rights Act 1998 3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB QBD 12-Apr-2006
The claimant complained at the control order by which restrictions were imposed on him as a suspected terrorist.
Held: The new provisions were declared incompatible with the applicant’s human rights. The procedures purported to allow judicial . .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AL Admn 17-Aug-2007
The claimant sought to challenge a control order made against him under the 2005 Act. He had not cross examined the prosecution witnesses saying that the procedure was unfair in that he had not been allowed to see all the evidence against him. He . .
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 – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH Admn 9-May-2008
The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even . .
Cited – Ali v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Nov-2008
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether . .
Cited – AR v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 15-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against the refusal of the Home Secretary to vary the control order made against him under the 2005 Act.
Held: The organisation of which the applicant was a member might soon enter into a settlement with the Libyan . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Human Rights
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244108