Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (on the application of) v AH [2008] EWHC 1045 (Admin) (23 April 2008)

Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (on the application of) v AH [2008] EWHC 1045 (Admin) (23 April 2008)

Article 6 ECHR does not require the Secretary of State to waive the NCND policy in this case because the Secretary of State is not relying on the alleged meetings or their contents, and the controlled person is not prevented from advancing his own case about them.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1045 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Defendant: AH; Special Advocate: AH (Special Advocates)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
NCND Policy, Article 6 ECHR, Closed Material Procedures, Special Advocates, Fair Trial Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Claimant

AH

Defendant

AH (Special Advocates)

Special Advocate

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Ruling

  1. 1 Whether Article 6 ECHR requires the Secretary of State to waive the NCND (Neither Confirm Nor Deny) policy regarding alleged meetings with the Security Service
  2. 2 Whether the controlled person is entitled to question Security Service witnesses about such meetings

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6 ECHR does not require the Secretary of State to waive the NCND policy in this case because the Secretary of State is not relying on the alleged meetings or their contents, and the controlled person is not prevented from advancing his own case about them.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Security Service witness permitted to decline to answer questions about the claimed meetings
  • No formal prohibition on asking questions, but witness need not answer and advocate will not press the point