Case Report Full name of the case Date

  • Slides: 11
Download presentation
Case Report

Case Report

Full name of the case • • Date 2004 Court UK House of Lords

Full name of the case • • Date 2004 Court UK House of Lords The source [2004] UKHL 56 http: //www. publications. parliament. uk/pa/ld 200506/ldjudgmt/jd 051208/aand-1. htm

Background of the case: facts • • • Who are the parties to the

Background of the case: facts • • • Who are the parties to the case the Home Secretary 9 foreigners Basis of the case The applicants are foreigners detained on the suspicion of terrorism. None has been the subject of any criminal charge. In none of their cases is a criminal trial in prospect. All challenge the lawfulness of their detention.

The legal issue of the case • Does the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act

The legal issue of the case • Does the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 violate Human Rights Law?

What law did the court use? • the European Convention on Human Rights, given

What law did the court use? • the European Convention on Human Rights, given domestic effect by the Human Rights Act 1998 • Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

The decision • The court decided for the appellants.

The decision • The court decided for the appellants.

What reasons did the court use? • There neither was nor is a "public

What reasons did the court use? • There neither was nor is a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation" within the meaning of law (Art. 15 of the Convention) • Article 15 requires that any measures taken by a member state in derogation of its obligations under the Convention should not go beyond what is "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. “ The detention was disproportionate. (Para 30)

• the legislative objective to protect the UK from the terrorists is justifiable,

• the legislative objective to protect the UK from the terrorists is justifiable, but it could have been achieved by means which did not, or did not so severely, restrict the fundamental right to personal freedom (Para 30)

• Providing for the detention of suspected international terrorists who were not UK

• Providing for the detention of suspected international terrorists who were not UK nationals but not for the detention of suspected international terrorists who were UK nationals, The UK legislation unlawfully discriminated against them as non-UK nationals (Para 46) • What cannot be justified here is the decision to detain one group of suspected international terrorists, defined by nationality or immigration status, and not another (Sec. 68)

Conclusion The UK courts can rule on the criminal justice legislation if the latter

Conclusion The UK courts can rule on the criminal justice legislation if the latter contradicts international human rights law.

Opinion • 1. I agree with the decision • Reasons: • The decision to

Opinion • 1. I agree with the decision • Reasons: • The decision to detain a foreigner indefinitely violates: a. The principle of liberty b. The principle of impartiality c. The principle of certainty d. The principle of speedy process

Full Faces Ocean Reef Full Face Space FullFull Faces Ocean Reef Full Face Space Full
Author Date Author Date Author Date Author DateAuthor Date Author Date Author Date Author Date
FULL NAME Curriculum Vitae DATE INPUT YOUR NAMEFULL NAME Curriculum Vitae DATE INPUT YOUR NAME
Name Date 106 Date 107 Date 108 MONDAYName Date 106 Date 107 Date 108 MONDAY
NAME DEVELOPMENTS POSTERS DATE DICE NAME DATE SURFACENAME DEVELOPMENTS POSTERS DATE DICE NAME DATE SURFACE
Name Period Subject Date Name Period Subject DateName Period Subject Date Name Period Subject Date
Presentation Name Subhead Date Presentation Name Subhead DatePresentation Name Subhead Date Presentation Name Subhead Date
Dis ability Income Insurance Case Name Date DateDis ability Income Insurance Case Name Date Date
First Name Last Name Event Name Date ofFirst Name Last Name Event Name Date of
Program Name Date Program Name Here Speaker NameProgram Name Date Program Name Here Speaker Name