The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Bary [2022] EWHC 405 (QB) (25 February 2022)

The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Bary [2022] EWHC 405 (QB) (25 February 2022)

The Commissioner's discretion to apply for a Notification Order is narrow and was lawfully exercised; there was no irrational failure to inquire further into risk. The statutory conditions for the order were met. The interference with Article 8 rights, including the impact on the defendant's mental health, was not disproportionate given the seriousness of the offending, the public interest in counter-terrorism, and the available safeguards. The application for a Notification Order is granted.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 405 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; Defendant: Mr Adel Abdel Bary
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Notification Order Under Counter Terrorism Act 2008 / High Court Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application granted; Notification Order made; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Notification Orders, Foreign Convictions, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Risk Assessment
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Human Rights Public Law Notification Orders Foreign Convictions Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Claimant

Mr Adel Abdel Bary

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Notification Order Under Counter Terrorism Act 2008 / High Court Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner lawfully exercised discretion to apply for a Notification Order under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 in respect of a foreign conviction
  2. 2 Whether making a Notification Order would be a disproportionate interference with the defendant's Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner's discretion to apply for a Notification Order is narrow and was lawfully exercised; there was no irrational failure to inquire further into risk. The statutory conditions for the order were met. The interference with Article 8 rights, including the impact on the defendant's mental health, was not disproportionate given the seriousness of the offending, the public interest in counter-terrorism, and the available safeguards. The application for a Notification Order is granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted; Notification Order made; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Notification Order made under section 57 and Schedule 4 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 for 30 years, requiring the defendant to provide specified personal, contact, financial, and travel information to the police, with ongoing and annual notification requirements.
  • Defendant must notify police of changes and travel outside the UK as specified.