Visit JCPCTEST NA -
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2021/0150
Parties
Appellant(s)
Lifestyle Equities C.V and another
Respondent(s)
Mr Kashif Ahmed
Ms Bushra Ahmed
Judgment appealed
HTML
Judgment details
Judgment date
7 August 2024
Neutral citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 1408
Hearing dates
Full hearing hearing
Start date
20 February 2023
End date
21 February 2023
Justices
Judgment details
Party representatives
Representative 1
Representative 1
Representative 1
LORD REED (with whom Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose and Lady Simler agree):
Introduction
1.The principal question in this appeal is whether the right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and implemented in our domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the Human Rights Act”), applies to an application under section 11 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) for the review of the Secretary of State’s decisions relating to the imposition of a temporary exclusion order (“TEO”) on the claimant, QX.
The background facts
2.
The claimant is a British citizen. He lived in Syria between 2014 and 2018. On 26 November 2018 the High Court granted an application by the Secretary of State under section 3 of the 2015 Act for permission to impose a temporary exclusion order on him. As permitted by section 3, the application was considered in his absence, without his having been notified or having an opportunity of making representations to the court.
3.
In support of the application the Secretary of State relied on a witness statement by the head of the Special Cases Unit at the Home Office’s Office for Security and Counter Terrorism. In the statement, the witness stated that the claimant had travelled to Syria, and that it was reasonably suspected that he was, or had been, aligned with an al-Qaeda aligned group. This allegation has been referred to in these proceedings as “the Syria allegation”. It was said that the choice that the claimant had made to travel to an active warzone, and to align with others bound by similar extremist beliefs, demonstrated the highest level of commitment to the Islamist extremist cause. As he was reasonably suspected to have been involved in terrorism-related activity, and taking account of the risk that those aligned with an al-Qaeda aligned group posed to national security, the Secretary of State was satisfied that imposing the order was the most appropriate and proportionate way of managing the circumstances in which the claimant could return to the United Kingdom and of requiring the claimant to comply with measures designed to protect the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, if he returned. Those measures were:
(1)
An obligation for the claimant to notify the police of his places of residence and any change in his places of residence.
(2)
An obligation for the claimant to report to a named police station, initially on a daily basis.
(3)
An obligation for the claimant to attend appointments with specified persons as notified in writing. He could be required to meet with a mentor twice a week for two hours at a time on each occasion to help support rehabilitation and re-integration into the community.
4.
The order imposed by the Secretary of State stated that it had been imposed because the following conditions were met:
“A.
The Secretary of State reasonably suspects that you are, or have been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom. Namely, it is assessed that you travelled to Syria and aligned with an al Qaeda-aligned group;
B.
The Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on you;
C.
The Secretary of State reasonably considers that you are outside the United Kingdom;
D.
You have the right of abode in the United Kingdom; and
E.
The court has given the Secretary of State permission to impose on you a temporary exclusion order under section 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.” (Emphasis in original.)