Miranda, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

Miranda, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

The court held that, pending the inter-partes interim relief hearing, the defendants may inspect and disclose the seized material only for the purposes of determining whether the claimant falls within Section 40(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 and for protecting national security, including preventing endangerment of life or diminution of counter-terrorism capability. The balance of convenience justified this limited exception due to the asserted national security risks and the short period until the next hearing.

Parties
Claimant: David Miranda; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Relief Application Pending Permission Hearing
Outcome
Interim relief partially granted
Legal Topics
Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 7 Powers, Protection of Journalistic Sources, Interim Relief, National Security, European Convention on Human Rights
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7 Powers Protection of Journalistic Sources Interim Relief National Security +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Miranda

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Relief Application Pending Permission Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exercise of Schedule 7 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 in detaining David Miranda was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the police had jurisdiction to exercise Schedule 7 powers in the international transit area
  3. 3 Whether the Schedule 7 powers are compatible with Articles 5, 6, 8, and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, pending the inter-partes interim relief hearing, the defendants may inspect and disclose the seized material only for the purposes of determining whether the claimant falls within Section 40(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 and for protecting national security, including preventing endangerment of life or diminution of counter-terrorism capability. The balance of convenience justified this limited exception due to the asserted national security risks and the short period until the next hearing.

Court Disposition

Interim relief partially granted

Orders

  • Defendants prohibited from inspecting, copying, disclosing, transferring, distributing, or interfering with data seized from the claimant except for (1) determining whether the claimant falls within Section 40(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 and (2) protecting national security, including preventing endangerment of...
  • Timetable set for service of evidence and skeleton arguments, and for a 'rolled up' hearing.