UK in violation of Art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
The use of secret evidence in terrorist suspect cases violates human rights, the has been warned.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled last week, in A and ors v UK that the UK was in breach of Art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) over the use of secret evidence by the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC).
The court was ruling on an appeal from 11 men detained by the home secretary for more than three years under the Anti- Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001. It held the inability of four of the men to effectively challenge the evidence against them that the use of secret evidence and special advocates amounted to a violation of their right to liberty under Art 5(4) of the Convention, and awarded the men compensation.
The ruling came a day after five law lords unanimously held it was safe to deport radical cleric Abu Qatada to Jordan, and approved the deportation of two Algerian terror suspects, in RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The
European Court is now considering whether to hear Qatada’s case, which could delay his deportation. Delivering judgment, Lord Hope reiterated the need to uphold the rule of law: “The rights and fundamental freedoms that the Convention guarantees are not just for some people. They are for everyone. No one, however dangerous, however disgusting, however despicable, is excluded. Those who have no respect for the rule of law—even those who would seek to destroy it—are in the same position as everyone else.” Home Secretary Jacqui Smith says: “Both our deportation with assurances policy and control orders have been upheld by the highest court in the UK as being compatible with our international obligations.“These [11] men have all been found by our courts to present a threat to our national security. We argued strongly to the
European Court that compensation should not be awarded to such individuals. Whilst I am very disappointed with any award, I recognise the court has made substantially lower awards than these men sought in view of the fact these measures were devised in the face of a public emergency. We are now considering the full judgment.”Eric Metcalfe, Justice’s director of human rights policy, said: “A day after the House of Lords approved the use of secret evidence by SIAC, the
European Court has raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of the special advocate procedure.”
