header-logo header-logo

02 February 2012
Issue: 7499 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Terrorism

Secretary of State for the Home Department v CE [2011] EWHC 3159 (Admin), [2012] All ER (D) 108 (Jan)

It was established principle that, in cases involving an individual suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activities, an interference with rights under the European Convention of Human Rights might be more easily justified as proportionate because the object was to protect the public from the risk of terrorism. As the secretary of state was better placed than the court to decide the measures necessary to protect the public against terrorism, a degree of deference should be paid to the decisions of the secretary of state in that area.

Nevertheless, the court remained under an obligation to subject to intense scrutiny the necessity for each of the obligations imposed on an individual under a control order pursuant to s 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll