The Queen (on the application of Maha El Gizouli) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Lord Burnett of Maldon,Mr Justice Garnham |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 60 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3449/2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 18 January 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 60 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE The Lord Burnett of Maldon
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Garnham
Case No: CO/3449/2018
Edward Fitzgerald QC, Richard Hermer QC, Joe Middleton and Edward Craven (instructed by Birnberg Peirce) for the Claimant
Sir James Eadie QC, Hugo Keith QC, Clair Dobbin and Victoria Wakefield (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 8 & 9 October 2018
Approved Judgment
The Lord Burnett of Maldon AND Mr Justice Garnham
Introduction
The issue raised in this claim for judicial review is whether it is lawful for the Home Secretary to authorise mutual legal assistance (“MLA”) to a foreign state in support of a criminal investigation which may lead to prosecution for offences which carry the death sentence in that state, without requiring an assurance that the prosecution would not seek the death sentence.
The claimant is the mother of Shafee El Sheikh. Mr El Sheikh is believed to be detained by Kurdish forces in northern Syria. Mr El Sheikh, along with Alexanda Kotey, have been accused of involvement in acts of barbaric terrorism in Syria (including the murder of American nationals) and of participating in the conflict there as fighters on behalf of ISIS.
The United States authorities wish to secure the surrender of Mr El Sheikh and prosecute him. By a letter to the US Attorney General dated 22 June 2018, the Home Secretary agreed to provide MLA to the US without requiring an assurance that the death penalty would not be imposed. Such assurances are routinely sought in extradition cases to territories which retain the death penalty.
The claimant advances five grounds in support of the case that the decision is unlawful:
(i) the death penalty is a “cruel and unusual” and “inhuman” punishment. It is unlawful for the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under the prerogative to facilitate the imposition of such a penalty or substantially to contribute to the risk of its imposition.
(ii) the decision is flawed by a series of misdirections of law and fact, and by failure to have regard to relevant considerations.
(iii) the decision is inconsistent with the UK government's policy of unequivocal opposition to the death penalty “in all circumstances”.
(iv) the decision violates the claimant's own rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) by subjecting her to inhuman treatment in violation of article 3 and in violation of her right to psychological integrity under article 8.
(v) the provision of MLA without assurances, violates the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the 2018 Act”).
The History
In June 2015, the US authorities made a request of the UK government for legal assistance in respect of their investigation that the US authorities were conducting into the activities of a group of British terrorists operating in Syria, suspected of being involved in the murder of US citizens in Syria. That request was made pursuant to the 1994 Treaty of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the US and the UK. The individuals who the US were investigating were part of a group who became known as “the Beatles” (on account of their British accents) by those they held captive.
The nature of the offences of which this group was suspected is described in a witness statement of Mr Graeme Biggar, the Director of National Security in the Home Office. He says:
“This group of terrorists is associated with some of the most barbaric crimes committed during the conflict in Syria. This includes its suspected involvement in the beheading of 27 individuals, including the murders of US citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff and Peter Kassig, and British citizens David Haines and Alan Henning. All but one of these beheadings were filmed and posted on the internet. The nature of the deaths suffered by these men (and the ongoing kidnap of others) has brought immense anguish to their families.”
On 29 October 2015, the United Kingdom Central Authority (“UKCA”) sought an assurance that “the death penalty will not be sought or imposed, or if imposed, will not be carried out against anyone found guilty of any criminal offence arising from this investigation” or from assistance provided by the UK.
On 21 March 2016, the US Department of Justice provided what is called a “Direct Use” undertaking. That provided that the US would
“introduce no evidence obtained in response to this request in a proceeding against any person for an offence subject to the death penalty. In the event that the evidence were to be introduced, the United States would take the decision not to seek the death penalty, a decision which in the federal system absolutely precludes the death penalty from being imposed.”
As Mr Biggar explains,
“Such a “direct use” assurance, nevertheless, allows evidence to be indirectly used, for example by being used to inform investigations and inquiries which could lead to the US obtaining its own evidence which it would be free to use.”
On 10 August 2017, following the change of administration in the US, the Home Office wrote to the Department of Justice referring to their letter of the 21 March 2016, and indicated that:
“It is our view that the assurance provided in respect of the death penalty falls short of that which was requested…”
In January 2018, Mr El Sheikh was apprehended in Syria. According to Mr Biggar, that brought “immediate political reality and urgency” to the question of where Mr El Sheikh should be brought to justice. He says it was the view of the new US Administration that those states from whom foreign terrorist fighters originated ought to try those individuals.
In January 2016, the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”), in consultation with the Attorney General for England and Wales, concluded that the case against Mr El Sheikh did not meet the evidential threshold for charge. In February 2018, the CPS again assessed that there was insufficient evidence upon which to prosecute Mr El Sheikh in the UK. That being so, there was no question of the UK seeking his extradition. We are told that the claimant does not accept the decision by the CPS but it is not challenged in these proceedings.
In February 2018, FBI agents visited the UK to have sight of the evidence gathered by the UK investigators. That had been approved by the then Home Secretary, the Rt Hon. Amber Rudd MP, on the condition that the material could be reviewed on an information-sharing basis only. Between 1 and 2 March 2018, Ms Rudd visited Washington where she had discussions with the then US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. In the course of those discussions, he expressed the view that all foreign terrorist fighters should be prosecuted in their home countries. He referred to them as “prisoners of war”, and to Guantanamo Bay as the appropriate place of detention for prisoners of war.
On 16 April 2018, the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism in the Home Office and the UKCA each provided submissions to the Home Secretary and the Security Minister. As Mr Biggar explains, the UKCA recommended that the Home Secretary “maintain her predecessor's decision to accede to the request dated 19 June 2015 but subject to a full death penalty assurance”. The following day the Security Minister, the Rt Hon. Ben Wallace MP, indicated that he agreed with the recommendations to accede to the June 2015 request, but disagreed with the recommendation that that should be subject to the provision of a full death penalty assurance.
Mr Wallace held talks on this issue with the Department of Justice on 20 April. He was told of opposition of senior members of the US Administration to Mr El Sheikh being tried in federal courts. As Mr Biggar puts it, “if the UK wanted to obtain support for a US prosecution, it would be critical that evidence provided by the UK came with the least amount of restrictions possible”. Mr Wallace was also informed that “if the US was left to deal with these individuals, the outcome could not be predicted. There were strong voices arguing for Guantanamo. The more restrictions the UK attached to support, the harder it would be to avoid that outcome.”
On 25 April 2018, Mr Sessions gave evidence at a Senate panel hearing. He said “I have been disappointed, frankly, that the British…are not willing to try the cases but intend to tell us how to try them…and they have certain evidence we need…” He also indicated that he was supportive of sending Mr El Sheikh and Mr Kotey to Guantanamo.
On 30 April 2018, The Rt Hon. Sajid Javid MP became Home Secretary. Four days later, he spoke to Mr Sessions. Mr Sessions indicated that he was concerned that the UK had said it was not interested in prosecuting Mr El Sheikh, that the death penalty should not be an issue for the UK and that he did not want the UK to tie his hands in relation to the use of material.
On 15 May 2018, the British Embassy in Washington was asked about the “likely response from the US Administration if the UK were to seek full or partial assurances on the death penalty” and, in particular, whether the request for such assurances would be critical in Mr Sessions' decision whether or not to prosecute in the US. In answer to the specific question “What if we ask for death penalty assurances?” the Ambassador provided the following response:
“…parts of the US machinery — notably career DOJ officials — would not be surprised if we asked for death penalty assurances. It is what they expect of us. But that doesn't go for the senior political levels of this administration: Cabinet Secretaries like...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Harry Miller v The College of Policings
...for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2013] QB 906, [53]–[54]; R (El Gizouli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] [2019] 1 WLR 3463, [54]–[57]. Mr Auburn submitted that the College had the power at common law to issue HCOG and there was no infringement of the principle o......
-
Elgizouli v Secretary of State for theHome Department
...before Lady Hale Lord Reed Lord Kerr Lord Carnwath Lord Hodge Lady Black Lord Lloyd-Jones Supreme Court Hilary Term On appeal from: [2019] EWHC 60 (Admin) Appellant Edward Fitzgerald Richard Hermer QC Joe Middleton Edward Craven Julianne Morrison (Instructed by Birnberg Peirce Ltd) Responde......
-
Ms Jennifer Webster v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs
...circumstances where an alternative, albeit not identical, remedy exists. In El Gizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 60 (Admin) the position of judicial review as a remedy of last resort and alternative remedies was considered in the context of alleged breaches o......
-
R Abdullah Muhammad Rafiqul Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Commonwealth Affairs [2014] UKSC 44; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 2697; Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 589, GC; R (Maha El Gizouli) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 60 (Admin), at 47 The question of requiring the Home Secretary to give Ashraf leave to enter the Unit......
-
International Criminal Cooperation, Human Rights, and the Application of the Charter
...in litigation regarding exactly this question, in a death penalty case arising from the Syrian conlict: see El-Gizouli v SSHD , [2019] EWHC 60 (Admin). 86 See Chapter 9, Section D(2)(b)(iii). International Criminal Cooperation, Human Rights, and the Charter 603 On the lowest end of the scal......