|
An immigration law ruling by the House of Lords last Thursday
has sparked a rather intense constitutional debate in the UK
regarding the duty of the Government to respect human rights
as interpreted by the courts. Here is a summary of the main
issues and decision. The case has potential implications
beyond the UK regarding the detention of foreigners and
articles 5 ECHR liberty of the person) and 14 ECHR (n on
discrimination) as the House of Lords relies exclusively on
these provisions to find a primary statute incompatible with
the UK's human rights obligations.
The case, A(FC) and others v Secretary of State for the
Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, relates to the indefinite
detention of a number of foreign nationals on the grounds that
the Secretary of State has a reasonable suspicion that they
are international terrorists. By virtue of an act passed in
December 2001, the UK parliament gave the government the power
to detain foreign nationals who are suspected of being
international terrorists until such time as they leave the UK
voluntarily or the Secretary of State considers that they are
no longer a threat. Most of the detained persons have been
given permission to stay in the UK as refugees or otherwise
protected persons (ie their return would be to a country where
there is a substantial risk they would suffer torture contrary
to article 3 ECHR).
The foreign nationals contested their detention and the
matter finally reached the House of Lords. Their Lordships
held that the 2001 UK law which provides the power to detain
is not in conformity with the Human Rights Act which
incorporates the EHCR into UK domestic law: in particular the
power is incompatible with articles 5 and 14 ECHR in so far as
it is disproportionate and permits detention of suspected
international terrorists in a way that discriminates on the
ground of nationality or immigration status.
Nine Lord Justices took part in the case of which eight
were in agreement. The judgment is extremely strong on the
right of liberty of the person. Lord Nicholls starts his
judgment: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or
trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of
law."
A majority of the judges accepted that the UK government
was within its powers to find that the UK was in a state of
public emergency after 11 September 2001 but found that the
measures taken were not "strictly requires by the
exigencies of the situation".
A copy of the judgment is available on the Court's website
please click
here to read the full text of the judgment. (In
doing so you will be leaving the EILN site)
|