A, K, M, Q & G v HM Treasury [2008] EWHC 869 (Admin) (24 April 2008)

A, K, M, Q & G v HM Treasury [2008] EWHC 869 (Admin) (24 April 2008)

The Orders are unlawful because they go beyond what is necessary or expedient to give effect to the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, set too low a threshold for designation, create criminal offences lacking legal certainty, and bypass Parliament in a manner inconsistent with constitutional principles. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 869 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant: A; Applicant: K; Applicant: M; Applicant: Q; Applicant: G; Respondent: H. M. Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Statutory Application / Preliminary Issues Determination and Merits Judgment
Outcome
Orders quashed; further submissions on form of order invited
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires, Human Rights Compatibility, Judicial Review, Asset Freezing, Criminal Offences, Legal Certainty, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Special Advocate Procedure, Burden and Standard of Proof
Public Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law International Law Ultra Vires Human Rights Compatibility Judicial Review +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

K

Applicant

M

Applicant

Q

Applicant

G

Applicant

H. M. Treasury

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Statutory Application / Preliminary Issues Determination and Merits Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 are ultra vires the United Nations Act 1946
  2. 2 Whether the Orders are incompatible with Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the Orders are unlawful by reference to the principle of legality

Ratio Decidendi

The Orders are unlawful because they go beyond what is necessary or expedient to give effect to the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, set too low a threshold for designation, create criminal offences lacking legal certainty, and bypass Parliament in a manner inconsistent with constitutional principles. The Orders' procedures for challenge are inadequate, particularly regarding closed material and the lack of a special advocate procedure. The Orders must be quashed, but Parliament may legislate to achieve compliance with the UN Resolutions.

Court Disposition

Orders quashed; further submissions on form of order invited