R (XH and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Hamblen,Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2016 |
| Date | 28 July 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2016] EWHC 1898
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Lord Justice Hamblen and Mr Justice Cranston
The Home Secretary had the power to cancel or withdraw United Kingdom passports under the Royal Prerogative from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism related activities.
The Administrative Court so held when dismissing a claim for judicial review by the claimants, XH and AI, of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to cancel their passports under such circumstances.
Mr Hugh Southey, QC and Mr Barnabas Lams for the first claimant; Mr Daniel Beard, QC, Mr Nikolaus Grubeck and Mr Jack R Williams for the second claimant; Mr James Eadie, QC and Mr David Blundell for the Home Secretary.
LORD JUSTICE HAMBLEN, giving the judgment of the court, said that the claimants contended that the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 was intended to be a comprehensive code that governed the civil powers that could be exercised to manage the risk posed by alleged terrorists, that it had displaced or curtailed the Royal Prerogative and that the purported use of the Royal Prerogative to circumvent the Act was unlawful. In considering that issue there were a number of relevant contextual factors: It was well known and long established that the right to withhold and to withdraw UK passports was governed by the Royal Prerogative. That had been confirmed by ministerial statements which had set out the UK Government's policy from time to time in respect of the use of the Royal Prerogative power to withhold or to withdraw a passport.
At the time the 2011 Act was passed the stated policy recognised that the power might be exercised in respect of "notoriously undesirable or dangerous activities".
Terrorism related activities were such activities. There was a clear public benefit in the retention of the power to withhold or to withdraw a passport in connection with terrorism related activities.
The purpose or at least a central purpose of the Act was to provide measures to protect the public from terrorism related activities.
That context strongly suggested that if Parliament had intended to abrogate the Royal Prerogative power it would have done so expressly. On the claimants' case Parliament was significantly curtailing an important power it had for the protection of the public in relation to terrorism related...
To continue reading
Request your trial