Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

The Schedule 7 stop was for a lawful statutory purpose, namely to ascertain whether the claimant appeared to be concerned in terrorism as defined by the Act. The interference with freedom of expression was justified and proportionate in light of compelling evidence of national security risks. Schedule 7 is not overbroad or arbitrary and does not violate Article 10 ECHR.

Parties
Claimant: David Miranda; 1st Defendant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department; 2nd Defendant: The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis; Intervener: Liberty; Intervener: English Pen, Article 19 & Media Legal Defence Initiative; Intervener: Coalition of Media & Free Speech Organisations
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Terrorism Legislation, Freedom of Expression, Journalistic Material, Proportionality, Judicial Review, Police Powers, National Security
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Terrorism Legislation Freedom of Expression Journalistic Material Proportionality +3 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Miranda

Claimant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

1st Defendant

The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis

2nd Defendant

Liberty

Intervener

English Pen, Article 19 & Media Legal Defence Initiative

Intervener

Coalition of Media & Free Speech Organisations

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of Schedule 7 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain the claimant was for a lawful purpose
  2. 2 Whether the use of Schedule 7 powers was a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether Schedule 7 is compatible with Article 10 ECHR and prescribed by law

Ratio Decidendi

The Schedule 7 stop was for a lawful statutory purpose, namely to ascertain whether the claimant appeared to be concerned in terrorism as defined by the Act. The interference with freedom of expression was justified and proportionate in light of compelling evidence of national security risks. Schedule 7 is not overbroad or arbitrary and does not violate Article 10 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed