XX (Algeria) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2018] UKSC 5
- 2018
- United Kingdom
Topics
Public securityLegal bases
United Kingdom: Immigration Act 1971 United Kingdom: Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 United Kingdom: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001Courts
The Supreme Court (UKSC), United KingdomLaws
Right to LibertyFacts
The respondent has been in the United Kingdom since 1993. He was previously detained under section 21 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act (2001) and when the 2001 Act was repealed, he was subject to a control order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. On 11 August 2005, he was notified of the Secretary of State’s intention to make a deportation order against him on national security grounds. He was detained under Schedule 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 pending deportation. He appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) against his deportation but had used a false identity in his application. Meanwhile the UK government had looked for assurance from the Algerian Authority that if the respondent returned to Algeria, he would not be subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR. In July 2006 the Algerian authorities confirmed that the details of the identity given by Mr. XX were those of an individual already living in Algeria. On 30 July 2008, SIAC held that the Secretary of State’s case against Mr. XX on the risk to national security had been made out. On 26 November 2010, SIAC further held that Mr. XX had disobeyed its earlier order of 19 July 2007 for him to provide details of his true identity and as a result imposed a prison sentence of four months on Mr. XX. Following Mr. XX’s release, bail conditions were imposed. In February 2014 SIAC concluded that there are no reasonable prospect of removing the applicant to Algeria and therefore removed the legal basis for justified detention under the Immigrations Act. Following this conclusion, the Secretary of State did not authorise a further detention and Mr. XX’s bail conditions were relaxed. Mr. XX had appealed against the notice of decision to deport him which was struck out by SIAC in light of his continuing contempt of court. SIAC had also rejected B’s submission that, following SIAC’s findings of 13 February 2014, it no longer had jurisdiction to grant bail to Mr. XX or to impose bail conditions. This decision was upheld by the High Court. Mr. XX appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed his appeal on the ground that SIAC had no jurisdiction to impose bail conditions on B if his detention would be unlawful. The Supreme Court granted the Secretary of State permission to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the issue of SIAC’s bail jurisdiction. The ground for the Secretary of State’s appeal is the suggestion/request that a purposive interpretation of the legislation should apply so that bail is available regardless of whether the individual is lawfully detained or would hypothetically be lawfully detained.
Legal grounds
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005; Immigration Act 1971.
Findings
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Parliament is presumed not to interfere with the liberty of the subject without making such an intention clear.