A, K, M, Q & G v HM Treasury

A, K, M, Q & G v HM Treasury

Both Orders are unlawful because they go beyond what is necessary or expedient to implement the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, create criminal offences with insufficient legal certainty, and fail to provide adequate judicial safeguards, including fair procedures for challenge and review. The Orders are...

Source-derived case information.

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 / Application to Set Aside Asset Freezing Orders / Judgment After Preliminary Issues Hearing
Outcome
Orders quashed (subject to hearing counsel on form of order)
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires Orders in Council, Asset Freezing Under UN Resolutions, Right to Judicial Review, Principle of Legality, Legal Certainty in Criminal Offences, Burden and Standard of Proof, Use of Closed Material and Special Advocates
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Ultra Vires Orders in Council Asset Freezing Under UN Resolutions Right to Judicial Review Principle of Legality +3 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 5 Authorities cited 25 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 / Application to Set Aside Asset Freezing Orders / Judgment After Preliminary Issues Hearing

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 fundamental rights and the principle of legality
  3. 3 Whether the Orders lawfully create criminal offences

Ratio Decidendi

Both Orders are unlawful because they go beyond what is necessary or expedient to implement the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, create criminal offences with insufficient legal certainty, and fail to provide adequate judicial safeguards, including fair procedures for challenge and review. The Orders are not a lawful means of implementing the UK's obligations under the UN Charter and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Orders quashed (subject to hearing counsel on form of order)