The Secretary of State for the Home Department v M: CA 18 Mar 2004

The applicant had been detained under the appellant’s certificate that he was a suspected terrorist.
Held: The fact that there were suspicions surrounding the detainee did not mean that those suspicions were necessarily reasonable suspicions as required by the Act. Though a detainee could leave this country as an alternative to detention, his safe removal might not be practical. The order required demonstration of links to al-Qaeda. A special advocate could look to the detainee’s interests, but was ‘undoubtedly under a grave disadvantage’, and a heavy responsibility remained upon the court and the appellant to ensure that the powers were not used in an unlawful way. ‘To be detained without being charged or tried or even knowing the evidence against you is a grave intrusion on an individual’s rights’. The commission did not second guess the Home Secretary, but reached its independent view of the basis of the suspicion. The commission had looked at all the evidence presented by the Home Secretary, and concluded that it did not justify a reasonable suspicion.
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Potter, Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales
[2004] 2 All ER 863, [2004] EWCA Civ 324, Times 24-Mar-2004
Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (2001 No 3644)
England and Wales
CitedChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
(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 by:
CitedA, 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 . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 January 2021; Ref: scu.194570