This paper examines the House of Lords' decision in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, which quashed the derogation order underpinning the indefinite detention of nine non-British terror suspects under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The paper argues that the decision was legally correct because the Act conflicted with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, applied discriminatorily to non-British nationals, and was rushed through Parliament in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks without adequate consideration of existing human rights obligations. Supporting precedents from Chahal v. United Kingdom, Soering v. United Kingdom, and Saadi v. Italy are analyzed to show consistent judicial resistance to unlawful detention.
After considering a number of legal cases, it appears that the decision of the Law Lords to quash the derogation order central to A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 was correct. The basis of this case was the detention of nine individuals in the United Kingdom who were suspected of being terrorists — suspicion that arose in large part because these individuals were detained in the period directly following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The crux of the matter is that the derogation order involved contradicted Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which expressly calls for the liberty and security of people within Europe. After considering a number of different issues, the House of Lords granted the appeal of the nine defendants and quashed the derogation order. An examination of several court cases and various aspects of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 reveals that Parliament was correct in issuing this judgment, for the simple reason that the aforementioned Act actually contradicted the European Convention on Human Rights.
One of the most definitive points of this case pertains to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It is necessary to note that this Act was created in the immediate wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (House, 2004). Because it was passed so quickly after the destruction of the World Trade Center, it is quite conceivable that those who drafted this legislation had not fully considered its ramifications — particularly its relationship to pre-existing legislation such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Those who promoted the Act appear to have done so largely on the basis of fear and an urgent desire to prevent a similar attack on the United Kingdom. Given the speed with which this legislation was both conceived and passed, it is not improbable that it would contradict more long-standing law.
In considering the lawfulness of the Law Lords' decision to quell the derogation order, it is necessary to examine Section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 closely. This section mandates that it is lawful to detain individuals who are either suspected of being terrorists or of engaging in terrorist activities in government facilities such as prisons. Moreover, this section states that in such circumstances, these individuals need not be awaiting trial or deportation (House, 2004). Law enforcement officials may merely suspect that these individuals are capable of committing a crime and detain them without any further justification. However, one of the most problematic aspects of this Act is that such detention — without deportation or trial — applies only to those who are not British citizens. This description applied to all nine individuals who were appellants in this case. It is therefore relatively clear how this part of the Act conflicts with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which expressly states that people throughout Europe are entitled to liberty and security.
It is also necessary to examine the legal mechanism that made it possible for legislation such as the 2001 Act to be passed. A derogation provision exists within the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision is Article 15, which states that "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention" (House, 2004). This aspect of the Convention was used to create the formal Derogation Order enacted specifically in response to the perceived terrorist threat following the World Trade Center attacks. That Derogation Order, in turn, was used to create the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The detention of the defendants, though lawful under the Act, therefore violated Article 5 of the Convention. Critically, the chief point that enabled the House of Lords to side with the appellants was that only non-British persons could be detained under the 2001 Act — a distinction that proved fatal to the derogation order's compatibility with the Convention.
"Unlawful detention of non-British national precedent"
"Prolonged detention equated to Convention violation"
"Post-UKHL 56 case reinforcing absolute torture ban"
The judgment issued in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department seems congruent with both law and policy under the European Convention. There are numerous court cases that substantiate this conclusion — some decided before the 2004 judgment, and others decided after. The principal reason for the decision to quash the derogation order related to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is that the Act applied exclusively to non-British nationals and thereby infringed upon the security and liberty guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention.
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.