“Controls on terror suspects are set to be tightened including a revived power to relocate people away from home and restrictions on visits to mosques.”
Daily Telegraph, 10th November 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A person detained for examination under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 had the right to consult a solicitor privately ‘in person, in writing or on the telephone’ before being interviewed.”
WLR Daily, 6th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, the terror suspect who escaped surveillance wearing a burqa, is seeking damages from the government in a human rights legal challenge involving allegations of torture, it has been revealed at the high court.”
The Guardian, 7th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Lawyers for the partner of a journalist are due back in court in a legal challenge to his airport detention under anti-terrorism laws.”
BBC News, 6th November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“There was nothing unlawful in the Foreign Secretary’s decision to allow a UK resident to be added to the UN’s Consolidated List of members of Al-Quaida and its associates.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Ali Naseem Bajwa QC and Terry McGuinness examine port stops carried out under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.”
Garden Court Chambers Blog,
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
“The Foreign Secretary had acted lawfully by applying a test of reasonable grounds for suspecting that the claimant met the criteria for designation on a UN Security Council’s consolidated list of persons to be treated as associated with an Islamic terrorist group . The law did not require the Foreign Secretary to stymie the designation because other states relied on evidence obtained by torture. That any review by the court of the designation decision was by way of the conventional rationality test.”
WLR Daily, 29th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Yesterday saw another poor piece of human rights reporting from the Telegraph, again from Home Affairs Correspondent David Barrett. Strasbourg human rights court threatens key counter-terrorism powers. It is a typical piece of hall-of-mirrors reporting; all of the basic elements are there but presented in a distorted and inaccurate way.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A white supremacist who hoped to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Muslims has been told he will serve at least 40 years imprisonment for a terror campaign in which he hunted down a Muslim to murder before he bombed three Midlands mosques aiming to kill and maim worshippers.”
The Guardian, 25th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
R v Gul (Appellant) 2013] UKSC 64 | UKSC 2012/0124 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 23rd October 2013
“R v Gul (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 64, 23 October 2013 – It is a platitude that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It is for precisely this reason that the international community has not been able to agree on a definition of terrorism to be embedded in international law. The issue in this appeal was whether the definition of ‘terrorism’ in the UK Terrorism Act 2000 includes military attacks by non-state armed groups against national or international armed forces in a non-international armed conflict.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Intrusive anti-terrorism powers that give police the right to detain travellers for up to six hours without suspicion, as well as download data from their phones and laptops, are unlawful, a group of MPs has warned.”
The Independent, 11th October 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Stop and search powers at ports and airports – used to detain the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald for nine hours during the summer – are too intrusive, according to a parliamentary committee.”
The Guardian, 11th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2013] UKSC 62; [2013] WLR (D) 371
“In considering whether an order depriving a person of British citizenship would make him stateless, as required by s 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended, the Home Secretary, and on appeal the court, had simply to identify whether the person held another nationality at the date the order was made. The section did not permit, or require, the Home Secretary to assert that the person’s failure to apply for restoration of another nationality which he would be bound to obtain, rather than the making of the deprivation order itself, made him stateless.”
WLR Daily, 9th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The home secretary’s attempt to deprive a man once held as a terrorist suspect of British nationality has been ruled illegal by the supreme court.”
The Guardian, 9th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Britain has had to pay out £4.4 million in taxpayers’ money as a result of losing 202 cases at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg since 1998, figures from the House of Commons reveal.”
The Independent, 8th October 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Today [4 October] the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced that there would be significant changes to the early release provisions. An MoJ press release stated that primary legislation would be brought forward in the new year.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 4th October 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Theresa May faces questions from MPs over why Britain granted asylum to one of the world’s most wanted al-Qa’ida terror suspects.”
The Independent, 7th October 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024