Accomplice Evidence
| Author | Simon Cooper |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.69.3.218.64775 |
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
threat presented by UK nationals, (b) it permitted foreign nationals
suspected of being Al-Qaeda terrorists or their supporters to pursue their
activities abroad if there was any country to which they were able to go,
and (c) the sections permitted the certification and detention of persons
who were not suspected of presenting any threat to the security of the
UK as Al-Qaeda terrorists or supporters. The appellants also put forward
the argument that if the threat presented to security by UK nationals
suspected of being Al-Qaeda terrorists or their supporters could be
addressed without infringing their right to personal liberty, it was un-
clear why similar measures could not adequately address the threat
presented by foreign nationals. Also since the right to personal liberty is
among the most fundamental of the rights protected by the European
Convention on Human Rights, any restriction of it must be closely
scrutinised by national courts to ensure no violation of democratic or
constitutional principle.
Further, s. 23 of the 2001 Act, which provides for the detention of
suspected international terrorists who were not UK nationals, but not
for the detention of suspected international terrorists who were UK
nationals, unlawfully discriminated against them as non-UK nationals
in violation of Article 14 of the Convention. The Belgian Linguistic Case
(No. 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252 stated that it is necessary to assess the
justification of the differential treatment of non-UK nationals ‘in rela-
tion to the aims and effects of the measure under consideration’ (para.
10). The security threat presented by the suspected international ter-
rorists did not depend on their nationality or immigration status.
On 11 March 2005, the detainees were released on bail, by the Special
Immigration Appeals Commission, after the passing of the new Preven-
tion of Terrorism Act 2005 which allows for control orders to replace
detention without trial. The interim control orders imposed by the
Commission mirror the ones under the legislation and include partial
house arrest with a night-time curfew, tagging and a ban on meeting
anybody not approved by the Home Secretary. These restrictions have
also been severely criticised as curtailing the rights of persons who
have not been charged with any crimes. However, the measures are
subject to full review by Parliament in a year’s time.
Amrita Mukherjee
Accomplice Evidence
R vHayter [2005] UKHL 6
The three defendants, B, H and R, were all tried as principals for the
murder of C, who was B’s husband. The case for the prosecution was
that B, using H as a middle man, had hired R to commit the murder. The
evidence against R was solely dependent on a confession which he had
allegedly made to his girlfriend. There was evidence that B and H
had associated on a regular basis and evidence that B had repeatedly
stated to numerous witnesses that she wanted C dead.
The Journal of Criminal Law
218
To continue reading
Request your trial