placeholder-image coin

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56


Citation:A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56

Link to case on WorldLII.

Rule of thumb:Is indefinite detention when being questioned by Police in connection with a crime a human rights violation? Yes, Police are only allowed to hold people for questioning in connection with an offence for a limited period of time, and after this it is a violation of the human right to liberty.

Background facts:

The basic facts were that those suspected of terrorism were allowed to be held indefinitely for questioning under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act.

Judgment:

It was ruled that this violated people’s right to Liberty and the parts of the Act allowing this were struck down.

centered image

Ratio-decidendi:

‘The more purely political (in a broad or narrow sense) a question is, the more appropriate it will be for political resolution and the less likely it is to be an appropriate matter for judicial decision. The smaller, therefore, will be the potential role of the court. It is the function of political and not judicial bodies to resolve political questions’, Lord Bingham at 29, ‘This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violenceserious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community. For these reasons I think that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission made an error of law and that the appeal ought to be allowed. Others of your Lordships who are also in favour of allowing the appeal would do so, not because there is no emergency threatening the life of the nation, but on the ground that a power of detention confined to foreigners is irrational and discriminatory. I would prefer not to express a view on this point. I said that the power of detention is at present confined to foreigners and I would not like to give the impression that all that was necessary was to extend the power to United Kingdom citizens as well. In my opinion, such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory’, Lord Hoffman (dissenting on whether Britain was in a ‘national emergency’ due to terrorism risk but agreeing the Act violated Article 5, liberty)

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.