D SQDRN 97th IOTC
10th Jun 2009, 12:54
BBC NEWS | UK | Terror suspects win legal battle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8092763.stm)
It seems Lord Hoffman regretted that the binding ECHR decision in A v United Kingdom required the appeals to be allowed.
For full judgment see:
House of Lords - Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) <i>v </i>AF (Appellant) (FC) and another (Appellant) and one other action (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090610/af-1.htm)
A very important question is being raised in this case. Can it be right that society can partially deprive someone of his complete liberty or can impose obligations on him / her by the use of control orders, because in so doing it might prevent some possible future act of terrorism ? Can it also be right that the issuance of control orders can be based upon closed / secret materials gathered by the security services?
Closed materials have often been used when suspected terrorists are before the courts, and there may be some amenity (like the keeping of national security) in not allowing those suspected terrorists to challenge and cross examine such materials in open court.
Natural Justice has a pillar which requires that a defendant has a right to hear the case against him, ("audi alteram partem" - I hear the other side) and to also be heard in answer to that case.
The previous position in the UK was that notwithstanding this pillar, a defendant could still achieve substantial justice when a decision was based on closed material.
The A v UK decision however says that where such evidence is "decisive", the requirements of a fair hearing will never be satisfied. So the balance between the individual and society swings back more towards the individual following this decision.
I hope that there is not now some future terrorist act in the UK which may have been prevented by the use of a control order.
It seems Lord Hoffman regretted that the binding ECHR decision in A v United Kingdom required the appeals to be allowed.
For full judgment see:
House of Lords - Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) <i>v </i>AF (Appellant) (FC) and another (Appellant) and one other action (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090610/af-1.htm)
A very important question is being raised in this case. Can it be right that society can partially deprive someone of his complete liberty or can impose obligations on him / her by the use of control orders, because in so doing it might prevent some possible future act of terrorism ? Can it also be right that the issuance of control orders can be based upon closed / secret materials gathered by the security services?
Closed materials have often been used when suspected terrorists are before the courts, and there may be some amenity (like the keeping of national security) in not allowing those suspected terrorists to challenge and cross examine such materials in open court.
Natural Justice has a pillar which requires that a defendant has a right to hear the case against him, ("audi alteram partem" - I hear the other side) and to also be heard in answer to that case.
The previous position in the UK was that notwithstanding this pillar, a defendant could still achieve substantial justice when a decision was based on closed material.
The A v UK decision however says that where such evidence is "decisive", the requirements of a fair hearing will never be satisfied. So the balance between the individual and society swings back more towards the individual following this decision.
I hope that there is not now some future terrorist act in the UK which may have been prevented by the use of a control order.
