Findings & Impact of Belmarsh

StudyBlue printing of Findings & Impact of Belmarsh html, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, p, blockquote, pre, a, abbr, acronym, address, big, cite, code, del, dfn, em, font, img, ins, kbd, q, s, samp, small, strike, strong, sub, sup, tt, var, b, u, i, center, fieldset, form, label, legend, table, caption, tbody, tfoot, thead, tr, th, td { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; background: transparent; } body { line-height: 1; } blockquote, q { quotes: none; } blockquote:before, blockquote:after, q:before, q:after { content: ''; content: none; } /* remember to define focus styles! */ :focus { outline: 0; } /* remember to highlight inserts somehow! */ ins { text-decoration: none; } del { text-decoration: line-through; } /* tables still need 'cellspacing="0"' in the markup */ table { border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; } /* end RESET */ .header { min-width:800px; } .logo { padding:6px 20px 2px 20px; margin:0; font-size:25px; font-weight:bold; color:#808285; position:relative; border-bottom: 1px solid #c5c5c5; } .logo-blue { color:#70adc4; } .logo-desc { font-weight:normal; font-size:19px; color:#cccccc; margin-top:50px; position:absolute; display: none; } .back-button { position:absolute; top:20px; right:20px; font-size:13px; line-height:25px; color:rgb(0,175,225); font-weight:normal; } .back-button a { color:rgb(0,175,225); } .instructions { padding:0; margin:0; width:100%; position:relative; color:rgb(100,100,100); } .step-holder { border-left:1px solid #ededed; margin-left:20px; } .steps { padding:15px 0; float:left; width:24%; border-right:1px solid #ededed; text-align:center; } .steps-01 { } .steps-02 { } .steps-03 { } .steps-04 { } .label { padding:5px 10px; } .print-button { } .print-button a { background-color:rgb(0,175,225); color:white; line-height: 19px; padding:9px 8px 5px 30px; font-size:14px; text-decoration:none; background-image: url(images/printer.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 7px 50%; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; } .print-button a:hover { background-color:black; } .theNote .content { width: 8.0in !important; margin: 5px auto; padding:20px; background-color:white; } .theNote .header { border-bottom: 1px dashed #C8C8C8; font-size: 17px; padding: 0 0 10px; line-height: 19px; color: #00ADE1; min-width:500px; } .theNote .body { font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; padding: 10px 0; } .theNote{ padding:6px 0; clear:both; background-color: rgb(200,200,200); } .theNote h3{ color: rgb(100,100,100); } .theNote h1, .theNote h3{ background-color:white; padding:2px 20px; width:8.0in !important; margin: 0 auto; font-size: 15px; } .theNote h1{ padding-top: 10px; font-size: 15px; } .theNote h1:first-child{ font-size: 20px; } .theNote h3 { font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; } #options { border: 3px double #ccc; padding: 5px 12px; margin: 10px 50px 10px 20px; float: left; } #info { border-top: 1px solid #ccc; padding-top: 5px; font-style: italic; } li { margin: 5px 10px 5px 25px; } ul li { list-style: disc; } ol li { list-style: decimal; } img { border: 0; } table { clear: both; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #c5c5c5; border-width: 1px 0; margin: 0; page-break-after: always; } table#page { page-break-after: auto; } td { text-align: center; font-size: 12px; border-bottom: 1px dashed #c5c5c5; height: 1.75in; width: 50%; padding-left: 15px; } .leftside { border-right: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 0 15px 0 0; } .bottom td { border-bottom: none; } .clearfix { clear:both; line-height:1px; height:1px; } img { max-width:80%; max-height:150px; margin:20px; } @media print {.header { display: none; } .content .header{ display:inherit; } table { border: 1px dashed #bbb; border-width: 1px 0; } .theNote{ background-color:white; } } Belmarsh case Was there a public emergency threat on which the derogation order could be founded?8 to 1 majority agreed that there was. Bingham and Scott were hesitant to reach this view and Hoffmann dissented. Majority referred to Lawless v Ireland which allowed Ireland to derogate even though it had not shown a widespread loss of life or attack on territory. Lord Bingham however argued that this was an issue of demarcation and the "more political" an issue the greater the scope of parliament; 'great weight should be given to the judgement of the home secretary.' Bingham saw the question of whether a state of emergency existed 'on the political end of the spectrum'. Lord Hoffmann dissented, which is interesting given his past thoughts on deference. He argued in light of recent history that threats existed but that they did not threaten the life of the UK because the nation was not "fragile or fissiparous". "whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is not doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. Were the powers of detention under s/23 of the 2001 act proportionate? Were they 'strictly required by the exigencies of the situation'? Proportionality, a question of law, was for the courts to decide. Lady Justice Mary Arden said, "s.23 was irrational". A 7 -1 majority held that s.23 was not proportionate.Bingham disagreed with the AG's comparison between democratic institutions and the courts, arguing that thee courts were functioning here with s.4 on a democratic mandate. Did s.23's detention powers contravene Art. 14 of the ECHR by discriminating unjustifiably between UK and foreign nationals? The majority disagreed with the Court of Appeal arguing the appropriate comparators were UK nationals who were suspected terrorists and not suspected terrorists who COULD be deported Impact of Belmarsh Decision This is the first time the courts have ever dealt a fatal blow to legislation dealing with national security through a DOI. The main contrasting case to this wa s Liversidge v Anderson where defense regulations were seen as paramount. In Bellmarsh, the court held that there was no jurisdictional barrier with regard to NS. Mary Arden: it is a powerful statement by the highest court in the land about what it means to live in a society where the executive is subject to the rule of law. Critics have argued that this is a case of the judiciary frustrating the government's attempts to protect the public. However, Keir Starmer, QC argues that the courts merely recognised the irrationality and ineffectiveness of the current approach while noting its discriminatory nature. Impact on the Individuals Concerned Home Sec. Charles Clarke did not revoke the certifications as he felt he was fulfilling his role as the HS because he believed the applicants posed a threat. The applicants went on to apply to the ECHR successfully in A & Ors v United kingdom. In 2009, the Grand Chamber of Strasbourg handed down a decision that agreed with the HL while addressing the SIAC's procedure's compatibility with Arts. 6 and 5 (4) - right to a fair hearing. They were released on March 11, 2005 and were subject to non-derogating control orders. Legislative Response to Bellmarsh After Charles Clarke set out proposals to repeal pt. IV, the new scheme involved deportation to home country (in cases where there was no threat to their Art. 3 rights). Those who could not be deported were subject to control orders.