A v HM Treasury (Nos 1 &2)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Rodger,Lord Walker,Lady Hale,LORD HOPE,LORD MANCE,LORD RODGER,LORD BROWN,Lord Brown,LORD PHILLIPS,Lord Mance
Judgment Date04 February 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] UKSC 5,[2010] UKSC 2
Date04 February 2010
CourtSupreme Court
Her Majesty's Treasury
(Respondent)
and
Mohammed Jabar Ahmed

and others (FC)

(Appellants)
Her Majesty's Treasury
(Respondent)
and
Mohammed al-Ghabra (FC)
(Appellant)
R (on the application of Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef)
(Respondent)
and
Her Majesty's Treasury
(Appellant)

[2010] UKSC 2

before

Lord Phillips, President

Lord Hope, Deputy President

Lord Rodger

Lord Walker

Lady Hale

Lord Brown

Lord Mance

THE SUPREME COURT

Hilary Term

On appeal from: [2008] EWCA Civ 1187

Appellants A, K and M

Tim Owen QC

Dan Squires

(Instructed by Birnberg Peirce and Partners)

Respondent

Jonathan Swift

Sir Michael Wood

Andrew O'Connor

(Instructed by Treasury Solicitor)

Appellant G

Rabinder Singh QC

Richard Hermer QC

Alex Bailin

(Instructed by Tuckers)

Respondent HAY

Raza Husain

Dan Squires

(Instructed by Birnberg Peirce and Partners)

Intervener (JUSTICE)

Michael Fordham QC

Shaheed Fatima

Iain Steele

(Instructed by Clifford Chance LLP)

LORD HOPE, with whom Lord Walker and Lady Hale agree

1

On 13 December 2006 the appellant Mohammed al-Ghabra, referred to in these proceedings as "G", was informed that a direction had been made against him by HM Treasury ("the Treasury") under article 4 of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (SI 2006/2657) ("the TO") and that he was a designated person for the purposes of that Order. He was told that the direction had been made because the Treasury had reasonable grounds for suspecting that he was, or might be, a person who facilitated the commission of acts of terrorism. He was also told that, in light of the sensitive nature of the information on which the decision had been taken, it was not possible to give him further details and that the effect of the direction was to prohibit him from dealing with his funds and economic resources and to prevent anyone notified of the freeze from making funds, economic resources or financial services available to him or for his benefit. On 2 August 2007 the appellants Mohammed Jabar Ahmed, Mohammed Azmir Khan and Michael Marteen (formerly known as Mohammed Tunveer Ahmed), referred to in these proceedings as "A", "K" and "M", received letters in almost identical terms telling them that a direction had been made against them under article 4 of the TO by the Treasury.

2

A few days after G had been told that he had been designated under the TO he received a letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office saying the Sanctions Committee of the Security Council of the United Nations (otherwise known as "the 1267 Committee": see para 18 below) had added his name to its Consolidated List, that this meant that he was subject to a freezing of his funds, assets and economic resources and that these measures were binding on all UN member states with immediate effect and had been implemented in UK law. No mention was made at that stage of the domestic measure under which the restrictions were being imposed on him. But in March 2007 he was told that his listing meant that he was deemed to be a designated person under the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (SI 2006/2952) ("the AQO").

3

In September 2005 Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef (or Hani al-Seba'i), referred to in these proceedings as "HAY", was told that his name had been added to the Consolidated List by the 1267 Committee. As a result he too was deemed to be a designated person under the AQO. His interest in these proceedings is virtually identical to those of G and A, K and M. So, although his case comes before this court on an appeal by the Treasury to which he is the respondent (see paras 35-37, below), I shall refer to him and to G and A, K and M as "the appellants" when I need to refer to all these designated persons collectively.

4

The TO and the AQO were made by the Treasury in purported exercise of the power to make Orders in Council which was conferred on them by section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 ("the 1946 Act"). In each case the Orders were made to give effect to resolutions of the United Nations Security Council which were designed to suppress and prevent the financing and preparation of acts of terrorism. The Orders provide for the freezing, without limit of time, of the funds, economic resources and financial services available to, among others, persons who have been designated. Their freedom of movement is not, in terms, restricted. But the effect of the Orders is to deprive the designated persons of any resources whatsoever. So in practice they have this effect. Persons who have been designated, as Sedley LJ observed in the Court of Appeal, are effectively prisoners of the state: A and others v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187; [2009] 3 WLR 25, para 125. Moreover the way the system is administered affects not just those who have been designated. It affects third parties too, including the spouses and other family members of those who have been designated. For them too it is intrusive to a high degree: see R(M) v HM Treasury (Note) [2008] UKHL 26, [2008] 2 All ER 1097. In that case, which concerned the payment of social security benefits to the spouses of listed persons living in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 to which the Al-Qa'ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 (SI 2002/111) gave effect.

5

The procedure that section 1 lays down enables Orders under it to be made by the executive without any kind of Parliamentary scrutiny. This is in sharp contrast to the scheme for the freezing of assets that has been enacted by Parliament in Part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Orders made under that Act must be kept under review by the Treasury, are time limited and must be approved by both Houses of Parliament: sections 7, 8 and 10. The systems that have been provided for in the TO and the AQO are far more draconian. Yet they lie wholly outside the scope of Parliamentary scrutiny. This raises fundamental questions about the relationship between Parliament and the executive and about judicial control over the power of the executive.

6

The case brings us face to face with the kind of issue that led to Lord Atkin's famously powerful protest in Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206, 244 against a construction of a Defence Regulation which had the effect of giving an absolute and uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the minister. In The Case of Liversidge v Anderson: The Rule of Law Amid the Clash of Arms (2009) 43 The International Lawyer 33, 38 Lord Bingham of Cornhill, having traced the history of that judgment, said that –

"we are entitled to be proud that even in that extreme national emergency there was one voice – eloquent and courageous – which asserted older, nobler, more enduring values: the right of the individual against the state; the duty to govern in accordance with law; the role of the courts as guarantor of legality and individual right; the priceless gift, subject only to constraints by law established, of individual freedom."

The consequences of the Orders that were made in this case are so drastic and so oppressive that we must be just as alert to see that the coercive action that the Treasury have taken really is within the powers that the 1946 Act has given them. Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law. We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty.

The legislative background: the history

7

To set the scene for the discussion that follows, it is necessary to trace the history of the various measures that have led to the appellants being dealt with in this way.

8

An examination of the legislative background must begin with the Charter of the United Nations. It was signed in San Francisco on 26 June 1945 as the Second World War was coming to an end. It came into force on 24 October 1945. The Preamble records the determination of the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. Member states bound themselves to maintain international peace and security, to take collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms: article 1.

9

No principled objections were raised against a strong Security Council. In order to achieve the goal of maintaining peace states were willing to submit to a central organ in a manner that hitherto had been unprecedented: The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, ed Bruno Simma, 2 nd ed (2002), p 703. Article 2 of the Charter states:

"The Organisation and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter."

Article 24 confers the primary responsibility on the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 25 provides:

"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

10

Chapter VII sets out the action to be taken with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Article 39, which introduces this Chapter, provides that it is for the Security Council to determine the existence of any such threat and to make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
112 cases
  • R v Forsyth & Mabey
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 23 Febrero 2011
    ...made during the parliamentary debates leading to the passage of the 1946 Act and some support too in the judgments of this court in A v HM Treasury [2010] 2 AC 6 Principal amongst the passages from Hansard relied upon are these: (i) "Subsection (4) provides that Orders in Council shall be ......
  • SHL (Tracing obligation/Trafficking)
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 16 Junio 2013
    ...are not self-executing in municipal law applies. This principle was expressed unambiguously by Lord Phillips in Ahmed v HM Treasury [2010] 2 AC 534, at [109], in the following terms: “Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom do not take direct effect. Treaties are entered into by the Gov......
  • John Dominick James Mahon and Another v FBN Bank (UK) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 6 Junio 2011
    ... ... Between ITV Broadcasting Limited (1) ITV 2 Limited Claimants (2) ITV Digital Channels (3) Channel 4 ... HHJ Simon Barker QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) ... Appeal Nos. CH/AP/397 & CH/AP/398 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION BIRMINGHAM ... ...
  • R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others (Liberty and another intervening)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 29 Enero 2013
    ...and potentially confusing to limit the relief that we grant in this way. We bear in mind what Lord Phillips said in HM Treasury v Ahmad [2010] UKSC 5, [2010] 2 AC 534 in relation to an application to suspend the effect of its order. As he pointed out (para 4), the problem with a suspension ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • Counter-Terrorist Financing: The Role of the Solicitor
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 8 Septiembre 2010
    ...2005. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTableauCourt.asp?MA=50&CM=16&CL=ENG, accessed 30 April 2010. A v HM Treasury [2010] UKSC 2. The Orders to which the case referred were the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 SI 2006/2657 and the Al-Qaeda and Taliban (Un......
  • Counter-Terrorist Financing: The Role of the MLRO
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 18 Mayo 2010
    ...2005. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTableauCourt.asp?MA=50&CM=16&CL=ENG, accessed 30 April 2010. A v HM Treasury [2010] UKSC 2. The Orders to which the case referred were the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 SI 2006/2657 and the Al-Qaeda and Taliban (Un......
  • Should Defective Court Orders Be Followed?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 9 Noviembre 2021
    ...of issuing a suspended quashing order in a judicial review application was ruled out by the Supreme Court in Ahmed v HM Treasury (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 534. It appears that the courts are moving away from the principle of absolute nullity. How this will be applied in specific circumstances, rem......
  • Should Defective Court Orders Be Followed?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 9 Noviembre 2021
    ...of issuing a suspended quashing order in a judicial review application was ruled out by the Supreme Court in Ahmed v HM Treasury (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 534. It appears that the courts are moving away from the principle of absolute nullity. How this will be applied in specific circumstances, rem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 books & journal articles
  • The Constitutional Logic of the Common Law.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...A law may, for our present purpose, be defined as 'any rule which will be enforced by the Courts.' "). See also Ahmed v. HM Treasury [2010] UKSC 2, [157] (appeal taken from Eng.) ("Nobody should conclude that the result of these appeals constitutes judicial interference with the will of Par......
  • Changes in methods of freezing funds of terrorist organisations since 9/11. A comparative analysis
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Money Laundering Control No. 15-2, May 2012
    • 4 Mayo 2012
    ...C.f. Case C-402/05 P Kadi v. Council of the European Union [2008] ECR I-6351, and Ahmedv. HM Treasury (Nos 1 and 2) [2010] UKSC 2, [2010] 2 AC 534.65. Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 2.66. Terrorism Act 2000, section 3(4).67. Terrorism Act 2000, section 4.68. Terrorism Act 2000, section 5-7. S......
  • Corporate Management
    • Jamaica
    • Corporate Business Principles. A Guide to the Jamaica Companies Act
    • 18 Febrero 2021
    ...[35-44] see also HMRC v Holland [2010] 1 WLR 2793; see also Re Paycheck Services 3 Ltd., Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Holland [2010] UKSC 5. Re UKLI Ltd. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Chohan and others [2013] EWHC 680 Ch. Corporate Management a de facto dir......
  • Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order?
    • European Union
    • European Law Journal No. 18-2, March 2012
    • 1 Marzo 2012
    ...R (on theapplication of Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef) (Respondent) v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Appellant),judgment of 27 January 2010 [2010] UKSC 2, para 22.61 See also on this point C. Eckes, ‘International Sanctions against Individuals: A test Case for the Resilienceof the European Union’s ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • The Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (Overseas Territories) Order 2011
    • United Kingdom
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 Enero 2011
    ...Order 2001 ( S.I. 2001/3366) which is vulnerable to being quashed following the Supreme Court decision inAhmed & Ors v HM Treasury[2010] UKSC 2. Applying Part 1 of the 2010 Act to the Territories will give them a similar power to the Treasury’s powers under the Terrorist Asset Freezing ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT