Mastafa v HM Treasury

Mastafa v HM Treasury

Article 6 ECHR applies to appeals under s.26 of TAFA. The affected individual must receive sufficient disclosure to enable a fair hearing, consistent with the requirements set out in AF (No 3) and related authorities. The contrary reasoning in Maftah is not binding and is incorrect. The statutory scheme and explanatory materials confirm that Parliament intended Article 6 to apply. The common law does not provide lesser protection, but its application is unnecessary given the engagement of Article 6.

Parties
Appellant: Gulam Mastafa; Respondent: H. M. Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome
Preliminary issue determined in favour of the appellant; Article 6 ECHR applies to the appeal.
Legal Topics
Article 6 ECHR, Disclosure Obligations, Special Advocates, Asset Freezing Orders, Fair Hearing, Counter Terrorism
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Article 6 ECHR Disclosure Obligations Special Advocates Asset Freezing Orders Fair Hearing +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulam Mastafa

Appellant

H. M. Treasury

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Preliminary Issue Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 6 of the ECHR apply to appeals under s.26 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc Act 2010 (TAFA)?
  2. 2 What is the scope of disclosure required to ensure a fair hearing in such appeals?
  3. 3 Does the common law provide equivalent protection if Article 6 does not apply?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6 ECHR applies to appeals under s.26 of TAFA. The affected individual must receive sufficient disclosure to enable a fair hearing, consistent with the requirements set out in AF (No 3) and related authorities. The contrary reasoning in Maftah is not binding and is incorrect. The statutory scheme and explanatory materials confirm that Parliament intended Article 6 to apply. The common law does not provide lesser protection, but its application is unnecessary given the engagement of Article 6.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue determined in favour of the appellant; Article 6 ECHR applies to the appeal.

Orders

  • The court holds that Article 6 ECHR applies to appeals under s.26 of TAFA.
  • Disclosure must be sufficient to enable the appellant to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate.