A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Extraits

[...] If the detention is not lawful, the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted by the court to secure the release of the Subject) Furthermore, Habeas Corpus protection extends to non-British nationals—Sommersett's Case (1772) 20 St Tr s.23 of the 2001 Act was discriminatory Art.14, ECHR prohibits discrimination NB. After the decision, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was enacted, which replaced the 2001 Act. Section 1 of the 2005 Act allowed the making, by the Court, of a Control Order, which has the power to detain terrorist suspects of any nationality . this is still controversial. [...]

[...] “England is the same nation as it was at the time of the first Elizabeth or the Glorious Revolution. The Armada threatened to destroy the life of the nation, not by loss of life in battle, but by subjecting English institutions to the rule of Spain and the Inquisition. The same was true of the threat posed to the United Kingdom by Nazi Germany in the Second World War. This country, more than any other in the world, has an unbroken history of living for centuries under institutions and in accordance with values which show a recognizable continuity.” This illustrates the spirit and the topical and sensitive nature of this case 2. [...]

[...] Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Section 21 of this Act gave the Secretary of State the power to issue a certificate to detain non-nationals residing in the UK who were suspected terrorists Section 23 of this Act made provision for the detention of non-nationals Section 25 of this Act allowed those detained under s.21 to appeal to a body known as the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) 11 people were detained under s.21 of the Act and appealed to SIAC on the basis that the 2001 Order and the 2001 Act were discriminatory because they allowed only non-nationals suspected of terrorism to be detained when equally dangerous British nationals could not be detained. SIAC allowed the appeal on discrimination grounds and: 1. [...]

[...] Quashed the 2001 Order 2. Granted a Declaration of Incompatibility under s.4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that s.23 of the 2001 Act was incompatible with Articles 5 and 14 of ECHR because it permitted the detention of international terrorists by discriminating against them on grounds of nationality (i.e. the “British national” and “non-national” separation) The Secretary of State appealed the SIAC decision in the Court of Appeal, the CA and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1502) allowed the Secretary of State's appeal, it was held: “There were objective, justifiable and relevant grounds for selecting only alien terrorists for detention, which did not involve impermissible discrimination.” In the same case, a cross-appeal from the 11 detainees was dismissed and it was held that the SIAC had correctly decided that there existed a “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” within art ECHR The 11 detainees therefore appealed against this decision to the House of Lords The Decision The House of Lords Law Lords sat for judgment, with Lord Bingham of Cornhill delivering the leading judgment) allowed the appeal of the 11 detainees The main reasons Lord Bingham gave for the allowing the appeal were: 1. [...]

[...] A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department Overview and Context This case concerns the detention of suspected terrorist suspects who are non-British nationals. In the context of a world which is more security alert in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Government reacted with new laws. However, these laws need to be tempered with age old principles of liberty of the person, which are at the heart of English law and are secured by both Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus—terrorist atrocities cannot let us forget this—it cannot allow us to throw these liberties away. [...]