C v HM Treasury [2016] EWHC 2039 (Admin) (05 August 2016)

C v HM Treasury [2016] EWHC 2039 (Admin) (05 August 2016)

The Treasury had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant was involved in supporting ALM through financial and logistical means, including employing ALM members and providing premises. The designation and its renewal were necessary and proportionate to protect the public from terrorism, and did not violate the appellant's rights under Article 8 ECHR or A1P1. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2039 (Admin)
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 After Full Hearing of Appeal Against Original and Renewed Designation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Terrorist Asset Freezing, Reasonable Belief Standard, Proportionality, Human Rights (article 8 ECHR, A1 P1), Burden of Proof in Asset Freezing, Disclosure and Closed Material Procedure
Public Law National Security Law Human Rights Law Terrorist Asset Freezing Reasonable Belief Standard Proportionality Human Rights (article 8 Echr, A1 P1) Burden of Proof in Asset Freezing +1 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 After Full Hearing of Appeal Against Original and Renewed Designation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Treasury had reasonable belief that the appellant was involved in terrorist activity under section 2 of the 2010 Act
  2. 2 Whether the designation and its renewal were necessary and proportionate for public protection
  3. 3 Whether the designation violated the appellant's rights under Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 1

Ratio Decidendi

The Treasury had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant was involved in supporting ALM through financial and logistical means, including employing ALM members and providing premises. The designation and its renewal were necessary and proportionate to protect the public from terrorism, and did not violate the appellant's rights under Article 8 ECHR or A1P1. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal against the original and renewed designation is dismissed.
  • The asset-freezing designation remains in force.