Hamza (almost) out, secret justice and government snooping – The Human Rights Roundup

10 April 2012 by

Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your weekly helping of human rights news. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.

In the news

The big news of today is that Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmad and 3 others are highly likely to be extradited to the USA to face terrorism charges, following a ruling in the European Court of Human Rights – see Isabel McArdle’s post on the ruling. This aside, the main topics in the news this week have been the response by the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights (the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the “JCHR”) to the Government’s Justice and Security Green Paper and the leaks that the Government plans to introduce “real time” monitoring of how we use the internet in the interests of national security.

by Wessen Jazrawi

Response by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to secret justice proposals

The JCHR has finally waded into the debate concerning the Justice and Security Green Paper, which has been the subject of several previous UKHRB posts (see here, herehere and here). It has come out in support of the stance taken by the Special Advocates, noting that the “closed material procedures are inherently unfair” and has made some proposals of its own on how the Government’s problems should be dealt with.

For more information on this, Rosalind English has published an post on the UKHRB, which has provoked some interesting discussion, including comments by Angus McCullough QC and David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. There are posts on this issue by the Guardian and by the Daily Mail, which notes in particular that Clegg is now insisting that the security services “cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the principle of open justice”.

A “snooper’s charter”

Information on proposals – described by the Sun as a “snooper’s charter” – has been leaked. If implemented, the proposals would give the UK intelligence body, GCHQ, real-time access to information held by internet service providers (ISPs) and other internet firms, such as information on who individuals are contacting, how frequently and for how long.

The Prime Minister and the Home Office have indicated that advancing technology is to blame for gaps in the existing law on surveillance, which they argue make the detection and prevention of crime more difficult. These proposals have been downgraded from a bill to a draft bill which, as JUSTICE’s Human Rights Policy Director Angela Patrick notes on the UKHRB, will provide an opportunity for a rational conversation about the regulation of surveillance and modernisation, to re-examine whether existing powers are fair, proportionate and accompanied by adequate safeguards. Here’s hoping that that the public will grasp that opportunity with both hands. There are also excellent posts by Out-Law here and by Panopticon Blog here.


The deportation to the USA of Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmed and 3 other terrorist suspects has been approved by the European Court of Human Rights. See our post, the judgment and the Court’s excellent press release.

In more deportation news, Rosalind English on the UKHRB examines the decision by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Amada Bizimana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 414 that the appellant’s continued detention, beyond the point when it became clear that his deportation would not occur within a reasonable time, was unlawful. As well as considering the merits of the decision, the post considers deportation rules more widely and also draws attention to the European Agency for the Management of External Borders – Frontex, which describes its operation as a necessary counterweight to the freedom opened up in most of Europe by Schengen.

Appeasement by the European Court of Human Rights?

An excellent post by Helen Fenwick on the UK Constitutional Law Group blog on whether two recent decisions by the Strasbourg court, Austin v UK and Von Hannover v Germany (No 2), represent a move towards the appeasement of certain signatory states.  It compares each with a previous counter-part decision against the same member state which adopts a more activist approach, and suggests that these cases may be indicative of a very recent reversal of certain trends in the reasoning of the Court, and may be intended to deflect the criticism that the Court has been too interventionist.

Newsnight interview of Babar Ahmad

I can second Adam Wagner’s recommendation of Dominic Casciani’s BBC Newsnight interview of Babar Ahmad, which can be found on the BBC iplayer here. As noted by Adam, Ahmad’s case cuts across a number of different rights controversies, including freedom of expression, detention without charge or trial for nearly 8 years, assault by police officers (for which he was paid £60,000 in compensation) and, finally, extradition to the US. In addition to noting that the interview cost the taxpayer £100,000, the Daily Mail also reported on the legal challenge brought by the BBC to obtain the interview and the concerns raised by ministers.

Family justice narratives

Further to earlier posts on this, the Pink Tape blog has published its first narrative from a family law solicitor. It’s a comprehensive, honest and rather sobering account of the various issues being faced by those in the family justice field.

Happy 2nd Birthday UKHRB!

With a lengthy subscriber list of over 10,000, the UKHRB turned the grand old age of two this week. Adam Wagner has posted on this here.

In the courts

R (on the application of Amada Bizimana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 414. The Court of Appeal found that, once it became clear that the appellant’s deportation would not occur within a reasonable time, his continued detention beyond that point was unlawful.

DL v A Local Authority & Others [2012] EWCA Civ 253. The Court of Appeal held that the “great safety net” of the High Court’s jurisdiction still exists to guard adults with capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 from the effect on their decision-making of undue influence, coercion and duress.

Department of Health v IC, John Healey MP and Nicholas Cecil (EA/2011/0286 & 287)The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant was required to disclose the Transitional Risk Register relating to the Government’s proposals for NHS reforms.

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

UKHRB posts


  1. frednach says:

    The PM described today’s judgement’s in six cases (one deferral) as ‘very pleasing’ cheered in the chorus by the terror chief advisor Lord Carlise, yet only a couple of weeks week back he was against the ECHR, all that they enshrined. Sometimes he gives the impression of the ECHR as a hocky cocky, in one moment then out another, which also reveals the government’s approach to HR as being inconsistent at best and duplicitous at worst.

    We do not know all the evidence in these cases save that the allegations are of the utmost seriousness, though not so serious so as to face any charges in the UK- hence the allegation being mounted that this smacks of passing the buck, ie chuckle brother’s approach to all things serious of the, to me to you approach.

    We of course have to wait a further three months to see if all the applicant’s raise any appeals which in light of the scare tactics and Arab spring ceremonials know doubt having an influence on the judges of reserving verdict. We then have a right of audience when matters come to a head in the US- we wait in hope and anticipation, personally I would ask Mr G Galloway for help having had exposure and justice in the US Senate Committee (no way suggesting these suspects deserve the gallows mind!!)..

  2. It is a shame that the human right round up ignored the issue of Jack Straw who authorised unlawful rendition of heavily pregnant woman! http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/jack-straw-authorised-unlawful.html Today the Daily Mail asks Which minister signed the torture deal? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127453/M16-1m-bribe-silence-torture-victim-Spies-gave-dissident-Gaddafi-thugs.html

  3. r1xlx says:

    Has last weeks statment by the Lord Chief Justice opened a Human Rights black hole for the NHS in regard to some NHS’s refusing to provide therapies and surgeries for transsexuals despite Strasbourgs case law since 2002?
    I know Oxford NHS refuses to treat TS and other try to make it very difficult by relying on the old Berkshire Funds caselaw.
    I know on eperson in West Yorkshire who has a claim going throughh right now and the CLJ’s statement shows her NHS hasn’t a leg to stand on so juts how many more are there?

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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.

%d bloggers like this: