Law to change on terrorist asset freezing after critical Supreme Court judgment

3 November 2010 by

On 1 November 2010 the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill received its third reading in the House of Lords. The bill, which started in the Lords, must now be passed by the Commons before receiving Royal Assent.

The Bill represents the coalition government’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision in HM Treasury v Ahmed (incidentally, the first appeal to have been heard in the Supreme Court) concerning the lawfulness of measures enabling the Treasury to freeze the assets of, amongst others, a person whom it has reasonable grounds for suspecting is or may be a person who facilitates the commission of acts of terrorism.

The Supreme Court held that the use of the Order in Council procedure, whereby the measure is simply laid before Parliament, without any opportunity for scrutiny or debate, was outside the powers which had been granted to the executive under section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946. The Supreme Court also described in strong terms the effect on the individual of such measures – “drastic”, “oppressive” and having the effect that “designated persons are effectively prisoners of the state.”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, emergency legislation was rushed through Parliament, effectively preserving the lawfulness of the steps taken under the quashed orders until 31 December 2010. This was to give adequate time for the passage of primary legislation which, Lord Hope anticipated, would remedy the breaches of fundamental law which rendered the Orders ‘ultra vires’ or outside the lawful power of the executive.

The response to the Bill currently before Parliament has not been wholly positive. A Joint Report by Liberty and JUSTICE criticises the Bill as continuing to fail to respect fundamental rights and freedoms and the due process of law. The Joint Report proposes a number of amendments to address this situation, the most important of which is to take the decision on whether to designate an individual as being subject to asset freezing orders away from the executive and place it in the hands of the courts. It is argued that the current proposal, whereby the Treasury would still take the decision to freeze assets but would give a right of appeal to the High Court, is flawed in so far as it puts the onus on the individual to challenge the punishment meted out to him without charge or trial, rather than requiring that a case be proved against him. The Joint Report also points to the unhappy precedent of the control orders regime when it comes to the effectiveness and legality of trials held behind closed doors in which the individual concerned has limited ability to challenge the evidence against him.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

1 comment;

  1. tara davison says:

    The debate about the oppressive freezing of terrorist assets before charge or trail or chance to answer the prosecutors continues. A handful of people have suffered from having their assets frozen under anti-terrorist legislation whilst thousands have suffered the exact same injustice under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: