This case concerns the detention of suspected terrorist suspects who are non British nationals. In the context of a World which is more security alert in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Her Majesty's Government reacted with new laws. However, these laws need to be tempered with age old principles of liberty of the person, which are at heart of English Law, and are secured by both MAGNA CARTA (1215) dealing with rights of Parliament, especially in respect of taxes and HABEAS CORPUS (1640) dealing with individual freedom namely "no one can be arrested without a reason and without being judged".
[...] The main reasons Lord Bingham gave for the allowing appeal were: the meaning of “public emergency threatening the life of the Nation” in article 15, ECHR were not satisfied In Lawless v Ireland, the Irish Government derogated from article ECHR because of low level IRA activity in order to detain terrorist suspects, this was held unlawful as it was not an ‘exceptional situation of crisis or emergency which affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organized life of the community'. [...]
[...] In the UK constitution, checks and balances are important in order to safeguard against any abuse of power. Despite the overlaps, recognition of legitimate functions exists in UK: -Government is accountable to the Courts Through the principle of legality -The Judiciary is accountable to Government and Parliament Under the Act of Settlement 1701, Judges hold office “during good behavior” and can only be removed by Her Majesty the Queen in response to an address from both Houses of parliament. Judges can be called to give evidence at Parliamentary Committees. [...]
[...] The Secretary of State appealed the SIAC decision in the Court of appeal which allowed him appeal on the basis that the issue being the legality of detaining non British suspects, the Government argued that detaining non British suspects was legal because there was a ‘public emergency threatening the life of the Nation' within article 15 ECHR. The 11 detainees, therefore, appealed against this decision to the House of Lords. THE DECISION The House of Lords allowed the appeal of the 11 detainees. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
