A & Ors v HM Treasury

A & Ors v HM Treasury

The inclusion of the words 'or may be' in article 4(2) of the Terrorism Order was ultra vires the United Nations Act 1946 and must be severed. Subject to that severance, the TO and AQO are not unlawful. Directions made under the TO referencing 'or may be' must be quashed. The AQO is lawful provided that a designated person is entitled to a merits-based judicial review of the executive's support for their listing. The Orders, as amended, provide sufficient legal certainty and proportionality, and procedural safeguards can be ensured by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

Parties
Applicants/respondents: A, K, M, Q & G; Respondent/appellant: H. M. Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part; Orders upheld subject to severance and quashing of directions.
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires Orders, Judicial Review, Procedural Safeguards, Legal Certainty, Proportionality, Implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions, Asset Freezing, Due Process, Access to Courts
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Ultra Vires Orders Judicial Review Procedural Safeguards Legal Certainty +5 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A, K, M, Q & G

Applicants/respondents

H. M. Treasury

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (TO) and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (AQO) are ultra vires the United Nations Act 1946
  2. 2 Whether the Orders are compatible with Convention rights and the principle of legality
  3. 3 Whether the Orders provide adequate procedural safeguards and access to courts

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of the words 'or may be' in article 4(2) of the Terrorism Order was ultra vires the United Nations Act 1946 and must be severed. Subject to that severance, the TO and AQO are not unlawful. Directions made under the TO referencing 'or may be' must be quashed. The AQO is lawful provided that a designated person is entitled to a merits-based judicial review of the executive's support for their listing. The Orders, as amended, provide sufficient legal certainty and proportionality, and procedural safeguards can be ensured by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part; Orders upheld subject to severance and quashing of directions.

Orders

  • The words 'or may be' are severed from article 4(2) of the Terrorism Order.
  • Directions made under the TO referencing 'or may be' are quashed.