C v HM Treasury

C v HM Treasury

The Treasury had a reasonable belief, based on the appellant's financial support and provision of premises and employment to ALM members, that he was involved in terrorist activity as defined by the 2010 Act. The original designation in February 2015 was necessary and proportionate to protect the public, but by February 2016, circumstances had changed such that continued designation was no longer necessary.

Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: HM Treasury; Special Advocate: Peter Carter QC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 26 of the Terrorist Asset Freezing Etc. Act 2010 / Judgment on Appeal Against Original and Renewed Designation
Outcome
Appeal against February 2015 designation dismissed; appeal against February 2016 renewed designation allowed.
Legal Topics
Asset Freezing, Terrorism Prevention, Proscribed Organisations, Proportionality, Reasonable Belief Standard, Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Public Law National Security Law Human Rights Law Asset Freezing Terrorism Prevention Proscribed Organisations Proportionality Reasonable Belief Standard +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Appellant

HM Treasury

Respondent

Peter Carter QC

Special Advocate

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 26 of the Terrorist Asset Freezing Etc. Act 2010 / Judgment on Appeal Against Original and Renewed Designation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Treasury had a reasonable belief that the appellant was involved in terrorist activity under section 2(1)(a) of the 2010 Act
  2. 2 Whether it was necessary for purposes connected with protecting the public from terrorism that financial restrictions be applied under section 2(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the designation and its renewal were proportionate and compatible with the appellant's rights under Article 8 and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Treasury had a reasonable belief, based on the appellant's financial support and provision of premises and employment to ALM members, that he was involved in terrorist activity as defined by the 2010 Act. The original designation in February 2015 was necessary and proportionate to protect the public, but by February 2016, circumstances had changed such that continued designation was no longer necessary.

Court Disposition

Appeal against February 2015 designation dismissed; appeal against February 2016 renewed designation allowed.

Orders

  • The February 2015 designation stands.
  • The February 2016 renewed designation is quashed.