A. and Others v. the United Kingdom

Last updated

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.

Contents

A. and Others v. the United Kingdom
Decided 19 February 2009
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0219JUD000345505
ChamberGrand Chamber
Ruling
The majority found a violation of Article 5 (1), (4) and (5) regarding some of the applicants of the case.
Court composition
President
Jean-Paul Costa
Judges
Legislation affecting
Part 4 of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
Case opinions
MajorityCosta, Rozakis, Bratza, Tulkens, Casadevall, Bonello, Barreto, Steiner, Garlicki, Hajiyev, Mijović, Myjer, Björgvinsson, Nicolaou, Bianku, Tsotsoria, Poalelungi

Background

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, eleven men were detained in HMP Belmarsh under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. They were alleged to be involved in extreme Islamic terrorist groups and were suspected of financially supporting them. Given that deporting them would give rise to ill-treatment, they were detained without trial. Eight of the applicants remained in Belmarsh until the Act was repealed by Parliament in 2005.

Judgment and Reasoning

Following the decision in the House of Lords, the applicants were still kept in detention and therefore applied to the European Court on Human Rights. Scholars have argued that the House of Lords judgment prepared the ground for the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. [1]

The Court unanimously ruled that the applicant's detention did not fall within the exception to the right of liberty set out in Article 5 (1)(f) as it was not possible to deport them. [2] The Government argued that Article 5 allows a balance between the right to liberty and the protection of national security from a terrorist threat. [3] The Court stated that the derogating circumstances under Article 15 are judged based on the exigencies of the situation. [4] Much like the House of Lords, the Court considered these measures were disproportionate and discriminatory to non-nationals, as the Act only applied to non-British nationals and in principle the terrorist threat is posed equally by nationals and non-nationals. [5] The Court, therefore, found a violation for nine of the applicants. [6]

The Court also found a violation of Article 5(4) in regarding four of the applicants, since due process was not satisfied during the proceedings. Some of the evidence used against the applicants was not disclosed to them and the advocates of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission could not communicate with their clients. [7]

The Court also found a violation of Article 5(5), in providing compensation for unlawful detention, for all the applicants, except two. [8]

As the applicants had domestic remedies to complain about their detention conditions, but did not make use of them, the Court found no violation of Article 3. [9]

Significance

This case has been argued as being "pivotal and an important statement on how far we can treat suspected foreign terrorists differently from criminal suspects." [10] It also highlighted the importance of the judiciary assessing the legality of the government decisions. Lord Hope stated that the judiciary holding the government to account is "a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state." [11]

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which was then later repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<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">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.

Murray v United Kingdom was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in 1994 to determine if part of the United Kingdom's anti-terrorism laws were in violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

<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.

Anti-terrorism legislation are laws with the purpose of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.

A control order is an order made by the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom to restrict an individual's liberty for the purpose of "protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism". Its definition and power were provided by Parliament in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Control orders were also included in the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.

Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1989) is a landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which established that extradition of a German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder and the potential exposure of said citizen to the death row phenomenon violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment. In addition to the precedent established by the judgment, the judgment specifically resulted in the United States and the State of Virginia committing to not seeking the death penalty against the German national involved in the case, and he was eventually extradited to the United States.

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom are part of UK constitutional law and have a long and formative history. This is usually considered to have begun with Magna Carta of 1215, a landmark document in British constitutional history. Development of civil liberties advanced in common law and statute law in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably with the Bill of Rights 1689. During the 19th century, working-class people struggled to win the right to vote and join trade unions. Parliament responded with new legislation beginning with the Reform Act 1832. Attitudes towards suffrage and liberties progressed further in the aftermath of the first and second world wars. Since then, the United Kingdom's relationship to civil liberties has been mediated through its membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom, through Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the drafting of the Convention, which expresses a traditional civil libertarian theory. It became directly applicable in UK law with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to life. The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified. The exemption for the case of lawful executions has been subsequently further restricted by Protocols 6 and 13, for those parties who are also parties to those protocols.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i> and <i>R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were a series of civil action court cases seeking judicial review of the British government's policies under the Human Rights Act 1998. They related to the right to property under Article 1 of the First Protocol and prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the convention. In Reynolds's case, there was also Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for "private and family life" to be considered, as well as Article 3 of the ECHR, the prohibition of torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010</span> British statute

The Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010 is an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament that was in force from 10 February 2010 until its repeal on 17 December that same year by the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010.

Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states:

The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ben Emmerson</span> British lawyer

Michael Benedict Emmerson CBE KC is a British barrister, specialising in public international law, human rights and humanitarian law, and international criminal law. From 2011 to 2017, he was the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism. Emmerson is currently an Appeals Chamber Judge of the UN Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals sitting on the Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. He has previously served as Special Adviser to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and Special Adviser to the Appeals Chamber of the ECCC.

Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows contracting states to derogate from certain rights guaranteed by the Convention in a time of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".

Saadi v Italy was a case of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided in February 2008, in which the Court unanimously reaffirmed and extended principles established in Chahal v United Kingdom regarding the absolute nature of the principle of non-refoulement and the obligations of a state under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

<i>Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom</i> (2008)

Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1194 was heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Fourth Section in Strasbourg on 4 November 2008 appeal from the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords before Lech Garlicki (President); Nicolas Bratza; Giovanni Bonello; Ljiljana Mijović; David Thór Björgvinsson; Ledi Bianku; Mihai Poalelungi.

<i>Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom</i> (2010)

Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 338 was heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in Strasbourg on 16 March 2010 on appeal from the European Court of Rights (ECHR), Fourth Section before Jean-Paul Costa (President), Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Karel Jungwiert, Nina Vajić, Dean Spielmann, Renate Jaeger, Danutė Jočienė, Ineta Ziemele, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Päivi Hirvelä, Luis López Guerra, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva.

References

  1. ↑ Dothan 2014, p. 111.
  2. ↑ A. and Others v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 at para 170
  3. ↑ A. and Others v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 at para 171
  4. ↑ A. and Others v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 at para 182
  5. ↑ A. and Others v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 at para 186
  6. ↑ A. and Others v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 at para 190
  7. ↑ A. and Others v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 at para 224
  8. ↑ A. and Others v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 at para 229
  9. ↑ A. and Others v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 at para 136
  10. ↑ "Freedom". EachOther. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
  11. ↑ A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 at para 99

Books

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.