header-logo header-logo

01 May 2008
Issue: 7319 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Freezing orer ruling a victory for democracy

News

The government’s use of control orders to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists undermines the sovereignty of Parliament, lawyers claim.
In A and others v HM Treasury  it was ruled that the government’s introduction through Orders in Council of UN resolutions requiring control over financing of terrorism was unlawful and without proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

Making his judgment, Mr Justice Collins said: “Counsel for the applicants have submitted that the means used to apply the obligations imposed by the UN Resolutions is unlawful. Parliament has been bypassed by use of Orders in Council. But in deciding the appropriate way in which the obligations should be applied and in particular in creating the criminal offences set out in the Orders it was necessary that Parliamentary approval should be obtained. Those submissions are in my judgment entirely persuasive”. Collins J said the orders should be quashed.

Jules Carey, of the police actions department at Tuckers solicitors, who acted on behalf of one of the claimants, says the effect of the judgment can not be overstated.

“It is the sovereignty of Parliament that is at stake here; the foundation block of the British constitution. If government can, without consulting Parliament, give itself powers to create criminal offences and take away fundamental rights then we are watching the sun set on democracy. The government will have sacrificed the very values that terrorism wishes to destroy,” he says.
The measures, introduced under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, allowed the Treasury to freeze the assets of those suspected of involvement in terrorist financing.

The claimants, who are yet to be charged, were allowed only funds for basic provisions and made to account for all expenses. A failure to provide detailed expenses could have resulted in a maximum seven-year prison term. Despite promises from the Treasury, judicial safeguards and a special advocates procedure for the use of closed source evidence have yet to materialise.

Jane Kennedy, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, says:  “The government continues to be fully committed to defending and maintaining our asset-freezing regime which makes an important contribution to our national security by helping to prevent funds being used for terrorist purposes and is central to our obligations under successive UN Security Council Resolutions to combat global terrorism”.

The Treasury intends to appeal the decision.

 

Issue: 7319 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll