Asset-freezing orders imposed by the Treasury on terrorist suspects violate basic rights
The government acted without Parliamentary authority when it froze the assets of five men suspected of financing terrorism, the Supreme Court has held.
The orders were made by the Treasury using special fast-track legislation—the United Nations Act 1946—that allows the government to implement UN Security Council resolutions without seeking Parliamentary approval.
The court found the orders had gone further than required by the Security Council, by imposing “oppressive” and “paralysing” financial restrictions on the men, who had not been convicted of the offence. It noted the men had no opportunity to challenge the orders, and were therefore denied effective judicial review.
Lord Hope, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, said: “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.”
Lord Phillips, president of the court, said: “Access to a court to protect one’s rights is the foundation of the rule of law. Nobody should conclude that the result of these appeals constitutes judicial interference with the will of Parliament. On the contrary it upholds the supremacy of Parliament in deciding whether or not measures should be imposed that affect the fundamental rights of those in this country.”
Eric Metcalfe, human rights policy director at Justice, which intervened in the case, Ahmed and others v HM Treasury [2010] UKSC 2, said: “It is right that the government takes action to prevent the financing of terrorism. But it was wrong for the Treasury to do so by side-stepping Parliament and violating basic rights.”
James Wilson, managing editor, All England Reporter, criticised the court’s delivery of a “lead judgment” endorsed by only three judges out of seven: “It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court in its first judgment of a case actually heard before it rather than the House of Lords did not take the opportunity to deliver a single majority judgment,” he said. “Instead there is what the press release calls a ‘lead judgment’, but this is endorsed only by three judges out of seven.”
Wilson adds that the lack of a single majority judgment will make it more difficult for the court to fulfil its core duties of explaining to the parties why each has won or lost.
