A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 3 All ER 169

Facts:

  • Nine men challenged a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to eject them from the country on the basis that there was evidence that they threatened national security
  • All except two were detained in December 2001; the others were detained in February and April 2002 respectively
  • All were detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
  • Part 4 of the Act provided for their indefinite detention without trial and deportation, however this power was only applied to non-British nationals

Issue:
  • Whether the detention was lawful under the ATCSA 2001

Held:
  • HoL held that whilst their detention was lawful under the ATCSA 2001, section 23 was incompatible with the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights
  • As a consequence, HoL made a declaration of incompatibility and allowed the appeals

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Law Cases

Case Name / Relevancy / Facts / Held Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] Actus Reus: Medical Treatment Doctors were granted approval to remove the feeding tube of Bland who had been left in a vegetative state after an injury suffered by the Hillsborough disaster. It was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment as the doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients. R v Kimsey (1996) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D admitted engaging in a chase but not to trying to overtake just before the accident which left Osbourne dead. The dangerous driving did not have to be considered a ‘substantial’ cause of death but rather a cause of death which was sufficient to convict D. R v Dalloway (1847) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D was not holding on to the reins on a horse and cart which resulted in a child running out into the road was killed by one of the wheels. D was charged for driving in a negligent fashion and causing the death of the c...
Read more

10. Introduction to Administrative Law: The Foundations and Extent of Judicial Review

Judicial review allows people with a sufficient interest to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of a decision of a public body carrying out its public functions and enactments where there is no right of appeal or where all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Judicial review is based on the constitutional principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. The defendant must be a public body, the subject matter of a claim must be a public law matter, and the claimant must have the right to claim (they must have sufficient interest in the matter). CoA stated that if it is unclear that a case is a public law matter, the claimant should seek judicial review to avoid an accusation of abuse of process. The key principle is that it is not an abuse of process for someone to raise a public law matter as a defence in civil proceedings. Declarations, injunctions, and damages may be sought by judicial review procedure. Exclusion of Judicial Review by Parliament ...
Read more

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Facts: S appealed against the High Court’s decision to strike out his statement of claim for personal injury damages on the grounds that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. S brought an action against the hospital alleging their negligent treatment of his son caused him to suffer psychiatric injury. Ratio: Appeal dismissed. However, even where a statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, the court had discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend it out of time provided that the proposed amendment arose from the facts in the pleading. S was unable to recover for psychiatric harm sustained as a result of watching his son die over a period of 14 days while becoming increasingly aware that the hospital was negligent in its treatment of him.
Read more