We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly, President Jacob Zuma and Public Protector Case CCT 143/15; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly, President Jacob Zuma, Minister of Police, Public Protector with Corruption Watch as Amicus Curiae – Case CCT 171/15 (31 March 2016) – read judgment
The Constitutional Court of South Africa last week handed down a damning judgement against the ruling head of the African National Party (the ANC). Despite this judgment, parliament voted not to impeach him. The ANC defeated the opposition-sponsored motion, saying Mr Zuma was not guilty of “serious misconduct”.
See University of Cape Town law professor Richard Calland’s article on the consequences of this ruling for President Zuma.
Background to the Constitutional Court proceedings
The Public Protector is an institution set up under the South African Constitution to ensure good governance and “strengthen constitutional democracy in the Republic”. She investigated allegations of improper conduct or irregular expenditure relating to the security upgrades at President Zuma’s Nkandla private residence, and she concluded that the President failed to act in line with certain of his constitutional and ethical obligations by knowingly deriving undue benefit from the irregular deployment of State resources. Exercising her constitutional powers to take appropriate remedial action she directed that the President, duly assisted by certain State functionaries, should work out and pay a portion fairly proportionate to the undue benefit that had accrued to him and his family. Added to this was that he should reprimand the Ministers involved in that project, for specified improprieties.
For well over a year, neither the President nor the National Assembly did what they were required to do in terms of the remedial action. Therefore the EFF and the DA took these applications agains the National Assembly and the President, arguing that the President should be ordered to comply with the remedial action. Continue reading →
More documents have emerged calling into question what the UK security services knew about the alleged mistreatment of ‘War on Terror’ detainees. Until this case is resolved, it is unlikely that work will begin on the upcoming torture inquiry.
Various documents have been disclosed in the ongoing case of Al Rawi and Others v The Security Services, in which six men who were detained at various locations, including Guantanamo Bay and Bagram in Afghanistan, allege various forms of mistreatment. They say that the UK government knew or should reasonably have known that the mistreatment was happening. Although the case has not yet reached trial, it has been the subject of a number of high-profile applications for secret documents (see our posts here and here).
When two Nobel Laureates, an eminent constitutional lawyer and the Secretary General of COSATU (South Africa’s largest trade union federation) are unified in their stinging criticism of a proposed Bill, it may be the time has come for a redraft. Following 293 condemnatory submissions to the National Council of Provinces’ Ad Hoc Committee, the ANC has begun to make concessions.
In an unexpected volte-face at Committee deliberations last month, the ANC tabled a raft of amendments to the current draft of the controversial Protection of State Information Bill. Key proposals include the insertion of a narrow ‘public interest defence’ in relation to a Clause 43 charge of unlawful disclosure of classified information and scrapping of the intolerably low mental element ofconstructive knowledge – “ought reasonably to know” – from many of the offence-creating provisions. By virtue of the former amendment, an accused would also be able to rely on a defence of ‘wrongful classification’.
R (on the application of) Lord Carlile of Berriew and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department 20 March 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 199 – read judgment
Last year the Divisional Court upheld the Home Secretary’s decision to prevent a dissident Iranian politician coming to the United Kingdom to address the Palace of Westminster: see that decision here and my post discussing the “Politics of Fear” here.
In this appeal, the parliamentarians contended that the Divisional Court had failed to consider the proportionality of the exclusion decision with sufficient scrutiny, and, by giving precedence to the possibility of unlawful actions by the Iranian regime, had given inadequate weight to the rule of law. It was perverse, they said, to justify the exclusion decisions by reference to risks to local staff and British government property in Tehran. Furthermore they argued that there had been unfairness in failing to consult the Parliamentary appellants. Continue reading →
Hassan v. the United Kingdom (application no. 29750/09) ECHR 936 (16 September 2014) – read judgment
This case concerned the capture of an Iraqi national, Tarek Hassan, by the British armed forces and his detention at Camp Bucca in southeastern Iraq during the hostilities in 2003. The complaint was brought by his brother, who claimed that Tarek had been under the control of British forces, and that his dead body was subsequently found bearing marks of torture and execution. In essence, the case raised issues concerning the acts of British armed forces in Iraq, extra-territorial jurisdiction and the application of the European Convention of Human Rights in the context of an international armed conflict. This was the first case in which a contracting State had requested the Court to disapply its obligations under Article 5 or in some other way to interpret them in the light of powers of detention available to it under international humanitarian law, which allows the internment of prisoners of war at times of international conflict.
The Grand Chamber held that although Tarek Hassan had been within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom between the time of his arrest by British troops until the moment of his release; there had been no violation of Article 5(1), (2), (3) or (4) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned his actual capture and detention. The European Convention had to be interpreted in parallel with international instruments which applied in time of war. Four out of the seventeen judges dissented on this point. Continue reading →
Last week, a number of media commentators, politicians and others sought to subvert the second consultation of the Bill of Rights Commission. This consultation invites views on a number of key issues that form part of the Commission’s mandate. In the Daily Mail’s correspondent’s view, the Commission has committed an appalling transgression by asking potential respondents whether the UK Bill of Rights should include additional rights, referring amongst other things to socio-economic rights. This is echoed by the Sun which argues that the Commission has ‘suggested’ (which it clearly has not) that ‘all Brits be given handouts as a birth right’, and the Daily Express which suggests “Spongers can Sue to Claim Benefits”.
Socio-economic rights are rights that relate to human survival and development. Like the majority of European and other countries, the UK has volunteered to be bound by a range of such rights as a result of ratifying a number of international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified by the UK in 1976); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1992) and the European Social Charter (ratified by the UK in 1962). While these treaties haven’t been made part of our domestic law in the way the European Convention on Human Rights has been as a result of the Human Rights Act, they impose a range of human rights obligations on the UK. The government reports back periodically to the UN expert committees that monitor the implementation of these treaties.
Does the current jurisprudence on Article 1 of the ECHR create potential human rights problems in the Syrian conflict?
by David Scott
Reports of two British citizens killed by RAF drone strikes in Syria last week have thrown up a whole host of ethical and legal questions. Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has already suggested the decision to launch the attack could be “legally reviewed or challenged”, while Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has made clear that the UK would not hesitate to launch such attacks in the future.
The Home Office has tightened its ‘good character’ guidance for citizenship applicants who entered the UK illegally or via dangerous routes. From 10 February 2025, those applying who arrived without ‘a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey’ will ‘normally‘ have their citizenship applications refused. This is ‘regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry’. A ‘dangerous journey’ includes, but is not limited to, ‘travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle’. The Home Office has confirmed these new rules would ‘likely not apply’ to children, ‘given illegal entry is normally considered outside of a child’s control’. This policy shift reflects the government’s attempt to deter illegal migration via ‘small boats’, and comes alongside the introduction of the recent Border Security, Asylum an Immigration Bill. The change departs from the policy that illegal entrants could have their citizenship applications considered after ten years. These updates have been criticised as a potential contravention of UK obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention, which prohibits the penalisation of asylum seekers and refugees for illegal entry.
MI5 has admitted providing false information to the courts regarding neo-Nazi agent, ‘X’, accused of attacking his former partner ‘Beth’. Her complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) was heard in her absence in closed sessions, due to MI5’s claim that it could neither confirm nor deny X’s identity for national security reasons. However, it was revealed that a senior MI5 officer had disclosed X’s identity to a BBC journalist, while attempting to dissuade the organisation from naming him in a report. This contradicted the Security Service’s stance in evidence given to multiple courts that national security reasons meant its ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy was strict. The MI5 Director-General has given an ‘unreserved apology to the court’, emphasising the agency’s commitment to accuracy and transparency. This revelation has raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence provided by the security service, which is given deferential treatment in the courts. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced an independent review into the incident.
In International News
Ukraine will not be attending upcoming US-Russia peace talks in Saudi Arabia, with European leaders also excluded. The continent’s most powerful leaders will gather for a crisis summit in Paris to discuss how to safeguard the future of European defence in the event of US disengagement, and how best to support Ukraine’s position. This also comes after JD Vance, US Vice-President, has recently accused European democracies of stifling freedom of speech and religion, criticising the UK’s conviction of Christian Adam Smith-Connor for breaching a safe zone around an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. This reflects the fractures in relations between the US and Europe, and there is increasing uncertainty over what role the US will play in future European security. Former prime minister of the UK, John Major, has warned that global democracy is under threat if the US withdraws from its leading role in the world, and that American ‘isolationism’ risks emboldening Russia and China to step into the vacuum. Crucially, any peace deal concluded without Ukraine’s involvement risks undermining the country’s sovereignty and right to self-determination, which are foundational principles of international law. Without Ukrainian or European presence at the talks, it is also unclear what stance will be taken regarding justice and accountability for human rights violations that are alleged against Russia during the war. Whatever the outcome of the upcoming talks, the balance of the international order appears to be at stake.
In the Courts
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Joseph El-Khouri against his extradition to the US to answer crimes of alleged insider trading. The decision clarified the definition of an ‘extradition offence’ and the operation of the ‘double criminality’ rule under s.137 of the Extradition Act 2003. This rule provides that the relevant conduct must constitute a crime in both the UK and the requesting country. Section 137 provides separate tests giving effect to the principle, depending on whether the acts took place in the requesting state’s territory (s.137(3)) or outside of it (s.137(4)). The Supreme Court rejected the USA’s arguments that, because the effects of Mr El-Khouri’s conduct were likely to be felt on US markets, they occurred ‘in’ the US . Departing from Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] 2 AC 1, the court held that the conduct occurred in the territory where the physical acts took place, not where their effects were felt. The court held that the statutory test for an extraditable offence was unworkable unless there was a clear distinction between offences taking place ‘in’ and ‘outside’ the requesting territory. The definition of conduct occurring ‘in’ the requesting territory had been too wide in Cando Armas, and this decision has labelled Lord Hope’s obiter comments in that case in particular as ‘mistaken’. In the present case, because almost all the relevant acts occurred in the UK and not in the US, Mr El-Khouri’s conduct had been wrongly classified as subject to the s.137(3) test. Although insider dealing was an offence under both US and UK criminal law, he could not be extradited because there was no provision of UK law which would have permitted a prosecution in equivalent circumstances of an individual in the US.
Omar & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2012] EWHC 1737 (Admin) (26 June 2012) – read judgment
The Divisional Court has ruled that common law principles cannot be used to obtain evidence from the Foreign Secretary for use in a foreign court.
Angus McCullough QC of 1 Crown Office Row appeared as a special advocate in the closed proceedings in this case. He is not the author of this post.
“Norwich Pharmacal” orders are sometimes granted to obtain information from third parties to help the court establish whether unlawful conduct has taken place. A court can in such a case compel the third party to assist the person suffering damage by giving them that information. In the cases of Binyan Mohamad and Shakar Aamer the courts extended the application of these orders to foreign cases. Now it appears that both may have been wrongly decided.
Wang Yam v Attorney General [2014] EW Misc 10 (CCrimC) 27 February 2014 – read judgment
It is for the UK government to decide whether to vary an order preventing publication of material heard in private in a murder trial, if the offender goes on to petition the European Court of Human Rights. It is not for the Strasbourg Court to determine whether the right to a fair trial should outweigh the risks to UK national security reasons.
The question regarding a state’s obligation not to impede the right of individual petition to Strasbourg arose where the applicant offender applied for an order permitting him to refer to material, which had been restricted on national security grounds during his murder trial, in an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Continue reading →
The High Court in Belfast struck down sections 12 to 16 of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 on Friday. The law granted automatic anonymity to people who are suspected of sexual offences where an allegation has been made to the police or the police have taken any step to investigate the offence, prohibiting reporting which might lead to the identification of such an individual. The prohibition only applied pre-charge, but continued for the duration of the suspect’s life and 25 years thereafter. The court found that the law was incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and did not strike a fair balance in public interest journalism cases, observing that “[p]ublic interest journalism serves a vital role in any democratic society”.
In other UK news, three prisoners were taken to hospital on Friday after disorder at HMP Parc, a prison in Bridgend, Wales, which is run by the private security firm G4S. 10 prisoners have died at the prison in the last 3 months. Families of those who have died at the prison had held a demonstration outside the prison earlier the same week. Deborah Coles, the director of INQUEST, said that “[t]he level of death and disorder at prisons like this one shows a complete failure of accountability on the part of government and a loss of control by ministers”.
In international news
An investigation by the Guardian and the Israeli-based magazines +972 and Local Call has alleged that Israel has deployed its intelligence agencies to surveil, pressure, and allegedly threaten senior ICC staff over the last decade. Israeli intelligence allegedly captured the communications of ICC officials, intercepting phone calls, messages, emails and documents. Yossi Cohen, the former head of Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, allegedly threatened Fatou Bensouda, a former ICC prosecutor, in an attempt to pressure her to abandon a war crimes investigation relating to Israel’s activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. The Guardianreported that Cohen’s activities were “authorised at a high level and justified on the basis that the court posed a threat of prosecutions against military personnel”. Cohen is alleged to have told Bensouda “[y]ou don’t want to be getting into things that could compromise your security or that of your family”. A spokesperson for Israel’s prime minister’s office said in response to the investigation: “The questions forwarded to us are replete with many false and unfounded allegations meant to hurt the state of Israel.”
On Wednesday the European Commission announced that it considers that there is no longer a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law in Poland, and that it would therefore close the Article 7 procedure against Poland which had been triggered in 2017. Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union allows the EU to suspend certain rights from a member state. The Commission stated that Poland has introduced legislative and non-legislative measures to address concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary, and that it will continue to monitor the implementation of those measures. Human Rights Watch criticised the move as premature.
In the courts
On Thursday the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered its verdict for 16 of the 47 activists and former politicians known as the ‘NSL 47’. The 47 were charged with conspiracy to subvert state power under the new National Security Law, which was passed in March this year. 14 were convicted, with two being acquitted and the remaining 31 pleading guilty. The charges arose from the activists’ participation in an unofficial primary election in July 2020 to pick opposition candidates for the 2020 legislative elections, which were then postponed. The UK said the case showed how authorities have used the controversial National Security Law to “stifle opposition and criminalise political dissent”. A spokesperson for Beijing’s Office for Safeguarding National Security defended the prosecution, saying the OSNS supported the Hong Kong judiciary’s decision to “punish acts and activities endangering national security according to the law, with no tolerance for any interference by external forces in the rule of law in Hong Kong.”
Kiani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 776 (21 July 2015) – read judgment
In my last post on UKHRB I commented on developments in UK, ECHR and EU jurisprudence relating to procedural fairness in the context of national security.
The developments in this recent case offer some further interesting thoughts on the topic. To explain the case, and put its ramifications in a broader context, this post will be divided into three parts. In the first I outline my original argument as set out in the earlier post. The second will explain the case itself. The third will offer five brief comments on the broader issues the cases touches upon.
In brief, the court in Kiani followed Tariqand held that AF-type disclosure (see below) was not a universal requirement of fairness; the interests of justice could require a lower standard of disclosure without violating the absolute right to a fair hearing. Continue reading →
1 Crown Office Row’s Peter Skelton appeared for The Security Services in this case. He is not the author of this post.
Al Rawi and others (Respondents) (Respondents) v The Security Service and others (Appellants) [2011] UKSC 34 – read judgment; read press summary
At the centre of this appeal was the court’s power to order a “closed material procedure” for the whole or part of the trial of a civil claim for damages. The question arose as a “preliminary issue” – a point to be determined on its own – in the appellants’ compensation claim for their alleged detention, rendition and mistreatment by foreign authorities in various locations, including Guantanamo Bay.
In countering the respondents’ claim for compensation, the appellant security services claimed that they had security sensitive material within their possession which they wished the court to consider in their defence but which could not be disclosed to the respondents. They therefore sought a “closed material procedure” for this part of their defence – a procedure whereby a party can withhold certain material from the other side where its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Continue reading →
Updated | The government is soon to reveal the future of control orders, controversial anti-terrorism measure which have been repeatedly found by the courts to infringe human rights. But what are they? And why have they caused such trouble since they were introduced?
What are control orders?
Control orders are an anti-terrorism power which allows the secretary of state to impose strict conditions on a terrorist suspect (the ‘controlee’).
IR (Sri Lanka) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 704 – Read Judgment
The Court of Appeal has rejected an argument that Article 8 of the European Convention of Rights (ECHR), the right to private and family life, requires that those challenging deportation and exclusion decisions on grounds of national security in proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) have to be given sufficient disclosure of the case against them to enable them to effectively instruct the special advocate representing their interests.
In his book “The Rule of Law”, the late Lord Tom Bingham enumerated a number of sub-rules to give content to that cardinal, oft-cited but rather vague constitutional principle. Unsurprisingly, one such sub-rule was that adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair, an idea which found expression in documents as old Magna Carta. In turn, this entails that, as Lord Mustill stated in In re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) [1996] AC 593, “each party to a judicial process should have an opportunity to answer by evidence and argument any adverse material which the tribunal make take into account when forming its opinion”.
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.
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly, President Jacob Zuma and Public Protector Case CCT 143/15; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly, President Jacob Zuma, Minister of Police, Public Protector with Corruption Watch as Amicus Curiae – Case CCT 171/15 (31 March 2016) – read judgment
Last week, a number of media commentators, politicians and others sought to subvert the 
IR (Sri Lanka) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 704 – 
Recent comments