CC v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor

CC v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor

The exercise of Schedule 7 powers in this case was unlawful because the officers had already determined the claimant appeared to be a terrorist and the predominant purpose of the examination was to gather intelligence for the Security Service in relation to control order proceedings, not to determine if the claimant appeared to be a terrorist as required by the statute.

Parties
Claimant: CC; 1st Defendant: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; 2nd Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Terrorism, Police Powers, Detention, Judicial Review, Control Orders, Right to Legal Advice
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Terrorism Police Powers Detention Judicial Review Control Orders +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CC

Claimant

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

1st Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exercise of Schedule 7 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 at Heathrow Airport against the claimant was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the predominant purpose of the examination was to determine if the claimant was a terrorist or to gather intelligence for control order proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to consult a solicitor at public expense during detention

Ratio Decidendi

The exercise of Schedule 7 powers in this case was unlawful because the officers had already determined the claimant appeared to be a terrorist and the predominant purpose of the examination was to gather intelligence for the Security Service in relation to control order proceedings, not to determine if the claimant appeared to be a terrorist as required by the statute.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed