A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date08 December 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] UKHL 71
Date08 December 2005
CourtHouse of Lords
A (FC)

and others (FC)

Secretary of State for the Home Department



and others

(Appellants) (FC)

and others

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Respondent) (Conjoined Appeals)

[2005] UKHL 71

Appellate Committee

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Lord Carswell

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood



Ben Emmerson QC

Philippe Sands QC

Raza Husain

Danny Friedman

(Instructed by Birnberg Peirce and Partners and Tyndallwoods, Birmingham)


Ian Burnett QC

Philip Sales

Robin Tam

Jonathan Swift

(Instructed by Treasury Solicitor)


Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, Colin Nicholls QC, Timothy Otty, Sudhanshu Swaroop and Colleen Hanley (Instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) for the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and two other interveners.

Keir Starmer QC, Nicholas Grief, Mark Henderson, Joseph Middleton, Peter Morris and Laura Dubinsky (Instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for Amnesty International and thirteen other interveners.


My Lords,


May the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ("SIAC"), a superior court of record established by statute, when hearing an appeal under section 25 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 by a person certified and detained under sections 21 and 23 of that Act, receive evidence which has or may have been procured by torture inflicted, in order to obtain evidence, by officials of a foreign state without the complicity of the British authorities? That is the central question which the House must answer in these appeals. The appellants, relying on the common law of England, on the European Convention on Human Rights and on principles of public international law, submit that the question must be answered with an emphatic negative. The Secretary of State agrees that this answer would be appropriate in any case where the torture had been inflicted by or with the complicity of the British authorities. He further states that it is not his intention to rely on, or present to SIAC or to the Administrative Court in relation to control orders, evidence which he knows or believes to have been obtained by a third country by torture. This intention is, however, based on policy and not on any acknowledged legal obligation. Like any other policy it may be altered, by a successor in office or if circumstances change. The admission of such evidence by SIAC is not, he submits, precluded by law. Thus he contends for an affirmative answer to the central question stated above. The appellants' case is supported by written and oral submissions made on behalf of 17 well-known bodies dedicated to the protection of human rights, the suppression of torture and maintenance of the rule of law.


The appeals now before the House are a later stage of the proceedings in which the House gave judgment in December 2004: A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, X and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68. In their opinions given then, members of the House recited the relevant legislative provisions and recounted the relevant history of the individual appellants up to that time. To avoid wearisome repetition, I shall treat that material as incorporated by reference into this opinion, and make only such specific reference to it as is necessary for resolving these appeals.

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001


The 2001 Act was this country's legislative response to the grave and inexcusable crimes committed in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001, and manifested the government's determination to protect the public against the dangers of international terrorism. Part 4 of the Act accordingly established a new regime, applicable to persons who were not British citizens, whose presence in the United Kingdom the Secretary of State reasonably believed to be a risk to national security and whom the Secretary of State reasonably suspected of being terrorists as defined in the legislation. By section 21 of the Act he was authorised to issue a certificate in respect of any such person, and to revoke such a certificate. Any action of the Secretary of State taken wholly or partly in reliance on such a certificate might be questioned in legal proceedings only in a prescribed manner.


Sections 22 and 23 of the Act recognised that it might not, for legal or practical reasons, be possible to deport or remove from the United Kingdom a suspected international terrorist certified under section 21, and power was given by section 23 to detain such a person, whether temporarily or indefinitely. This provision was thought to call for derogation from the provisions of article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention, which it was sought to effect by a Derogation Order, the validity of which was one of the issues in the earlier stages of the proceedings.


Section 25 of the Act enables a person certified under section 21 to appeal to SIAC against his certification. On such an appeal SIAC must cancel the certificate if "(a) it considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind referred to in section 21(1)(a) or (b), or (b) it considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued". If the certificate is cancelled it is to be treated as never having been issued, but if SIAC determines not to cancel a certificate it must dismiss the appeal. Section 26 provides that certifications shall be the subject of periodic review by SIAC.



SIAC was established by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which sought to reconcile the competing demands of procedural fairness and national security in the case of foreign nationals whom it was proposed to deport on the grounds of their danger to the public. Thus by section 1 (as amended by section 35 of the 2001 Act) SIAC was to be a superior court of record, now (since amendment in 2002) including among its members persons holding or having held high judicial office, persons who are or have been appointed as chief adjudicators under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, persons who are or have been qualified to be members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and experienced lay members. All are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who is authorised by section 5 of the Act to make rules governing SIAC's procedure. Such rules, which must be laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, have been duly made. Such rules may, by the express terms of sections 5 and 6, provide for the proceedings to be heard without the appellant being given full particulars of the reason for the decision under appeal, for proceedings to be held in the absence of the appellant and his legal representative, for the appellant to be given a summary of the evidence taken in his absence and for appointment by the relevant law officer of a legally qualified special advocate to represent the interests of an appellant in proceedings before SIAC from which the appellant and his legal representative are excluded, such person having no responsibility towards the person whose interests he is appointed to represent.


The rules applicable to these appeals are the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 (SI 2003/1034). Part 3 of the Rules governs appeals under section 25 of the 2001 Act. In response to a notice of appeal, the Secretary of State, if he intends to oppose the appeal, must file a statement of the evidence on which he relies, but he may object to this being disclosed to the appellant or his lawyer (rule 16): if he objects, a special advocate is appointed, to whom this "closed material" is disclosed (rule 37). SIAC may overrule the Secretary of State's objection and order him to serve this material on the appellant, but in this event the Secretary of State may choose not to rely on the material in the proceedings (rule 38). A special advocate may make submissions to SIAC and cross-examine witnesses when an appellant is excluded and make written submissions (rule 35), but may not without the directions of SIAC communicate with an appellant or his lawyer or anyone else once the closed material has been disclosed to him (rule 36). Rule 44(3) provides that SIAC "may receive evidence that would not be admissible in a court of law". The general rule excluding evidence of intercepted communications, now found in section 17(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, is expressly disapplied by section 18(1)(e) in proceedings before SIAC. SIAC must give written reasons for its decision, but insofar as it cannot do so without disclosing information which it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose, it must issue a separate decision which will be served only on the Secretary of State and the special advocate (rule 47).

The appellants and the proceedings


Of the 10 appellants now before the House, all save 2 were certified and detained in December 2001. The two exceptions are B and H, certified and detained in February and April 2002 respectively. Each of them appealed against his certification under section 25. Ajouaou and F voluntarily left the United Kingdom, for Morocco and France respectively, in December 2001 and March 2002, and their certificates were revoked following their departure. C's certificate was revoked on 31 January 2005 and D's on 20 September 2004. Abu Rideh was transferred to Broadmoor Hospital under sections 48 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in July 2002. Conditions for his release on bail were set by SIAC on 11 March 2005, and on the following day his certificate was revoked and a control order (currently the subject...

To continue reading

Request your trial
158 cases
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mohamed (formerly CC)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 2 May 2014
    ...fairness of the trial. " 22 In attacking this approach, Mr Otty seeks to rely on A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2) [2006] 2 AC 221, especially the speech of Lord Bingham (at paragraphs 55 and 56). 23 There is an obvious difference between A (No. 2) and the present case.......
  • R Pavel Ivlev v Entry Clearance Officer, New York
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 9 May 2013
    ...94 Counsel for the Claimant sought to support his submissions by reference to A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2) [2005] UKHL 71; [2006] 2 AC 221, in which the House of Lords held that evidence obtained by torture by foreign authorities could not be relied upon in English......
  • RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 9 April 2008
    ...a multitude of equally strongly worded authorities, is to be found in §17 of the speech of Lord Bingham in A v Home Secretary (No2) [2006] 2 AC 221. 49 SIAC was wrong not to recognise this crucial difference between breaches of article 6 based on this ground and breaches of article 6 based ......
  • United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v. M.B., [2007] N.R. Uned. 183 (HL)
    • Canada
    • 31 October 2007
    ...burden of proving this upon the person who wishes to challenge it: see A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 A.C. 221. It is particularly difficult for a person subject to control order proceedings to do this. Devising a sufficient means ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
41 books & journal articles
  • Executive Detention, Boumediene, and the New Common Law of Habeas
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 95-2, February 2010
    • 1 February 2010
    ...five days of questioning in an unfamiliar and threatening setting after an all-night interrogation). [463] See A (FC) v. Sec'y of State, [2005] UKHL 71, [51] (Eng.) (ruling inadmissible evidence gained by the torture of witnesses by a foreign government and stating that the "common law has ......
  • Keeping control of terrorists without losing control of constitutionalism.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 59 No. 5, March 2007
    • 1 March 2007
    ...433, 435. The appeal is principally confined to the admissibility of evidence tainted by torture. A v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 A.C. 221; see also JOINT COMM. ON HUMAN RIGHTS, COUNTER-TERRORISM POLICY AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TERRORISM BILL AND RELATED MATTERS, 2......
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 12-4, November 2008
    • 1 November 2008
    ...for legalprofessionals’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 TABLE OF CASESA v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2006]2 AC 221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228A T& T Istelv Tully [1993]AC 45 . . . . . . . . . . . .151Adams vCanon (1621) Dyer53b n 15 ......
  • Criminal Evidence and Computer Technology
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Cyber Crime - Law and Practice Contents
    • 29 August 2019
    ...obtained through torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (see A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123, [2006] 2 AC 221, in which it was held as a matter of constitutional principle that any evidence procured by torture was not admissible in a British court rega......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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