An Egyptian national, had lived here since 1994. He challenged a decision by the Secretary of State,as a member of the committee of the United Nations Security Council, known as the Resolution 1267 Committee or Sanctions Committee. The committee maintained a list of persons and entities subject to the asset freeze imposed on persons ‘associated with Al-Qaida’ under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and had included his name on the list, making him subject to sanctions.Held: His appeal failed. The respondent’s 2005 decision to remove his hold on the proposal for the appellant’s designation by the Sanctions Committee was the exercise of prerogative powers for the conduct of foreign relations. This does not make it immune from judicial review, but the courts should proceed with caution. Even if there were a flaw in the respondent’s 2005 decision, this of itself would not entitle the appellant to a remedy. Quashing the decision would not have any substantive effect on the appellant’s present position, as it would not detract from the continuing effect of the Sanction Committee’s listing or its application in the United Kingdom through Regulation 881
Judges:
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath
Citations:
[2016] UKSC 3, [2016] WLR(D) 35, [2016] AC 1457, [2016] 2 WLR 509, [2016] 3 All ER 261, UKSC 2014/0028
Links:
Bailii Summary, Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
Appeal from – Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 29-Oct-2013
The claimant appealed from rejection of his judicial review of a decision that he be placed on a list of persons subject to sanctions and therefore without access to money save with the consent of the government.
Held: The Secretary of State . .
At first instance – Youssef, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 23-Jul-2012
The claimant challenged having been listed as an associate of Al-Qaida, with the resulting freezing of assets and a travel ban.
Held: His request for judicial review failed.
Toulson LJ deprecated the ‘tendency on the part of lawyers . . . .
Cited – Kadi v Council and Commission ECJ 3-Sep-2008
(Common foreign and security policy) Grand Chamber – Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban United Nations Security . .
Cited – Kadi v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2010
ECFI Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – . .
Cited – Prosecutor v Furundzija ICT 10-Dec-1998
The status of the prohibition on State torture as a rule of jus cogens has the consequence that at the inter-State level, any legislative, administrative or judicial act authorising torture is illegitimate. Furthermore, the prohibition on State . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
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 . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another CA 12-Oct-2006
The claimants sought that the defendant should issue a request to the US authorities for their release from detention at Guantanamo Bay.
Held: The courts would not be able to intervene by judicial review, and would be reluctant to intervene in . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .
Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
Cited – Regina v Foreign Secretary ex parte Everett CA 20-Oct-1988
A decision taken under the royal prerogative whether or not to issue a passport was subject to judicial review, although relief was refused on the facts of the particular case.
Taylor LJ summarised the effect of the GCHQ case as making clear . .
Cited – Regina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs CA 6-Nov-2002
There is no authority in law to support the imposition of an enforceable duty on the state to protect the citizen, and although the court was able to intervene, in limited ways, in the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used its . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .
Cited – Entick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Cited – TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others CA 14-Jan-2011
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the . .
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
Cited – HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 4-Feb-2010
The Court had declared unlawful as ultra vires terrorism related orders made against the several claimants. The court now considered how restrictions imposed by banks should be dealt with.
Held: (Lord Hope dissenting as to the order required) . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited by:
Cited – Miller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Crime, Judicial Review
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.559349