A v Home Secretary (No 2)

Last updated

A v Home Secretary (No 2)
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Full case nameA (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (2004),
DecidedThursday 8 December 2005
Citation(s)[2005] UKHL 71
Case history
Prior action(s)[2004] EWCA Civ 1123
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingLord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Keywords
Rule of law

A v Home Secretary (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the rule of law.

Contents

Facts

Information, obtained through torture of terrorist suspects by US armed forces and passed to UK officials, had been presented to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as part of the Crown's case to justify the indefinite detention in HMP Belmarsh of individuals suspected of offences related to terrorism.

"Ten men were certified by the Secretary of State as suspected international terrorists and were detained in the Belmarsh prison in London. The certification was made on the basis of information obtained by torture (infliction of severe pain or suffering on a person in order to obtain information). The men appealed their certification and claimed that the tainted information should not have been admitted. The House of Lords held that such information, indeed, should not have been admitted and allowed the appeals." [1] -pulled from the summary of the basis for the case rendered by the International Crimes Database.

Judgment

The House of Lords held that evidence obtained or likely obtained by torture committed abroad by a foreign state’s agents is inadmissible in proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

Lord Bingham said the following.

51. .... it would of course be within the power of a sovereign Parliament (in breach of international law) to confer power on [a tribunal] to receive third party torture evidence. But the English common law has regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for over 500 years, and the abhorrence is now shared by over 140 countries which have acceded to the Torture Convention.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of the United Kingdom</span>

The United Kingdom has three legal systems, each of which derives from a particular geographical area for a variety of historical reasons: English and Welsh law, Scots law, Northern Ireland law, and, since 2007, calls for a fourth type that of purely Welsh law as a result of Welsh devolution, with further calls for a Welsh justice system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, formally introduced into Parliament on 19 November 2001, two months after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It received royal assent and came into force on 14 December 2001. Many of its measures are not specifically related to terrorism, and a Parliamentary committee was critical of the swift timetable for such a long bill including non-emergency measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extraordinary rendition</span> State-sponsored abduction and transfer to a third country

Extraordinary rendition is a euphemism for state-sponsored kidnapping in another jurisdiction and transfer to a third state. The phrase usually refers to a United States-led program used during the War on Terror, which had the purpose of circumventing the source country's laws on interrogation, detention, extradition and/or torture. Extraordinary rendition is a type of extraterritorial abduction, but not all extraterritorial abductions include transfer to a third country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004 that the detention without trial of eight foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with European human rights laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in the United Kingdom</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in the United Kingdom

Human rights in the United Kingdom concern the fundamental rights in law of every person in the United Kingdom. An integral part of the UK constitution, human rights derive from common law, from statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, from membership of the Council of Europe, and from international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</span> Final court of appeal in the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom’s highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Security certificate</span>

In Canada, a security certificate is a legal mechanism by which the Canadian government can detain and deport permanent residents and all other non-citizens living in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Binyam Mohamed</span> Ethiopian Guantanamo detainee

Binyam Ahmed Mohamed, also referred to as Benjamin Mohammed, Benyam Mohammed or Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi, is an Ethiopian national and United Kingdom resident, who was detained as a suspected enemy combatant by the US Government in Guantanamo Bay prison between 2004 and 2009 without charges. He was arrested in Pakistan and transported first to Morocco under the US's extraordinary rendition program, where he claimed to have been interrogated under torture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abu Qatada al-Filistini</span> Islamic cleric, alleged al-Qaeda member (born 1959)

Omar Mahmoud Othman, better known as Abu Qatada al-Filistini, is a cleric and Jordanian national. Abu Qatada was accused of having links to terrorist organisations and frequently imprisoned in the United Kingdom without formal charges or prosecution before being deported to Jordan, where courts found him innocent of multiple terrorism charges.

Hider Hanani, alias Amar Makhlulif and kunyaAbu Doha, is an Algerian alleged to be member of the al-Qaeda and GSPC terrorist networks.

<i>A v Secretary of State for the Home Department</i> UK human rights case

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 56 is a UK human rights case heard before the House of Lords. It held that the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners in Belmarsh without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

<i>Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.

Administrative detention is arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial. A number of jurisdictions claim that it is done for security reasons. Many countries claim to use administrative detention as a means to combat terrorism or rebellion, to control illegal immigration, or to otherwise protect the ruling regime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United Kingdom</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in the United Kingdom

The constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched; the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.

Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. A governmental decision that is Wednesbury-unreasonable may be quashed by the High Court. This type of unreasonableness of public body decisions was laid down in the English case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947), where it was said that a public authority acts unreasonably when a decision it makes is "so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority".

<i>R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2)</i> UK constitutional law case on the Chagos Islanders

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult [2008] UKHL 61 is a UK constitutional law case in the House of Lords concerning the removal of the Chagos Islanders and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The Chagos Islands, acquired by the United Kingdom in 1814, were reorganised as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965 for the purpose of removing its inhabitants. Under a 1971 Order in Council, the Chagossians were forcibly removed, and the central island of Diego Garcia leased to the United States for use as a military outpost.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sonia Burgess</span> British immigration lawyer

Sonia Burgess was a leading British immigration lawyer. Winstanley-Burgess solicitors, co-founded by Burgess in 1975, became one of the UK's "most respected asylum and immigration law practices".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Precedent fact errors in Singapore law</span> Singaporean legal doctrine

Errors as to precedent facts, sometimes called jurisdictional facts, in Singapore administrative law are errors committed by public authorities concerning facts that must objectively exist or not exist before the authorities have the power to take actions or make decisions under legislation. If an error concerning a precedent fact is made, the statutory power has not been exercised lawfully and may be quashed by the High Court if judicial review is applied for by an aggrieved person. The willingness of the Court to review such errors of fact is an exception to the general rule that the Court only reviews errors of law.

<i>The Public Prosecution Service v William Elliott, Robert McKee</i>

The Public Prosecution Service v William Elliott and Robert McKee [2013] UKSC 32 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning admissibility of electronic evidence obtained from an electronic fingerprint reader unit that had not been approved by the Secretary of State as required by Article 61(8)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989.

A. and Others v United Kingdom is a human rights case decided by the European Court of Human Rights. It unanimously held that holding prisoners indefinitely under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Article 5.

References

  1. "ICD - A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2) - Asser Institute". internationalcrimesdatabase.org. Retrieved 29 September 2023.

Notes