Role of Parliament

The House of Commons and the House of Lords make up the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is the principal legislative and policymaking body. Changing circumstances in a specific field of law need changes to current legislation, which Parliament does by amending it. Legislators are given green and white papers, which are also known as discussion documents or Bills, for discussion. These papers include the specifics of proposed new legislation or proposed changes to already existing legislation. There are multiple readings before a bill becomes an Act of Parliament. Parliament receives a formal introduction to a proposed legislation change during the first reading. Allows parliament to discuss Bills broad substance on second reading. At the committee stage, the plans are thoroughly examined and adjustments are proposed. The report stage is when any changes that have been made are addressed in further detail. The court is unable to create or alter the law due to the parliaments inherent power. In the UK, however, the court has the potential to revise, develop, and amend legislation via statutory interpretation due to a lack of discussion time in Parliament and areas of law where it is unclear what the original intent was. The European Court of Justice may also be used by judges to influence changes in UK legislation via referrals of cases. The United Kingdom has three distinct legal systems: English and Welsh law, Scottish law, and Northern Irish law. These various legal systems are a reflection of their historical origins. The United Kingdoms constitution is mostly unwritten, since there is no official text outlining the rights of citizens or outlining how the government should operate. Written legislation and constitutional conventions make up the United Kingdoms constitution. England and Wales adhere to the common law system of law. Common law is founded on earlier instances, and the judges create the law via this process. In England and Wales, common law may be dated back to King Henry IIs reign. The judicial system in Scotland was unique in that it had its own jurisdiction and was completely apart from the rest of the British legal system. Scotlands legal system is a hybrid of Roman Dutch law and English law. Modern laws are applied across the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, however there are certain variances in particular legislation, such as property laws. Scotlands legal system has greater relation to the civil system than to English law. There are several fundamental legal doctrines that may be traced back to common law. Individual rights are protected by the common law against both the rule of law and the state.

Relevant Case Facts

A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Jamal Ajouaou, and seven other foreign nationals were all held without charge at the Belmarsh jail because of their ties to terrorist organisations and national security risk, among other things, in the first House of Lords ruling encouraging the United Kingdom to change its rules on the treatment and criminal procedure of terrorists. In line with Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights, there should be no indefinite imprisonment without charges or trials (ECHR). European Convention on Human Rights Article 5(1)(f) forbids the imprisonment of foreign people for a lengthy period. Terrorist threats pose a severe danger to national security, yet Article 5 of the constitution should be overlooked during a national crisis, it was argued (see Article 15 ECHR). The current restrictions were found illegal because of their disparate and discriminatory effect on domestic terrorist suspects, whereas foreign terrorism suspects may be held indefinitely (unless they voluntarily leave the country, at which time they are free to depart). European Convention on Human Rights Section 23 was declared incompatible with international human rights obligations because it allowed indefinite detention for foreign suspects who were unable to leave the United Kingdom (for example, because they feared torture back home) to be held for an unlimited period of time.

Procedural History of Case

All but one of the accused had been detained in the United Kingdom at the end of December of that year on suspicion of being terrorists. Credentials were revoked as a result of their abrupt withdrawals from the country between December 2001 and March 2002. Abu Rideh was admitted to the Broadmoor Mental Health Center in July 2002, and has been there ever since. It was argued by the defendants that the ATCSA and Human Rights Act (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 were unconstitutional because the UK government had the ability to detain foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist organisations or activities indefinitely if they could not be deported. The European Convention on Human Rights Article 5 guarantees the right to liberty, however the public emergency outlined by these measures allows a deviation from that guarantee[1].

European Convention on Human Rights Articles 5 and 14 prohibit the custody of suspected international terrorists in a manner that is based on nationality, according to SIACs 30 July 2002 ruling. Court of Appeal in the UK overturned this ruling on 25 October 2002. British nationals who are unable to flee the country should be given preferential treatment over foreigners in the case of a public emergency, even if the Supreme Court adopted a basic criteria because it considered the Executive the proper authority. It was concluded that the defendants should be imprisoned indefinitely due to these circumstances. This decision was appealed by all nine of the defendants.

Relevant Law

After the Anti Terrorism Act of 2001 was partly repealed in 2005, the SIAC was able to place any individual who is regarded an active terrorist organisation member under a control order regardless of whether or not they are US citizens. It was on December 14, 2011, that Section One of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 invalidated the Preventing Act of 2005[2].

On January 21, 2005, the petitioners approached the European Court of Human Rights. (ECtHR). Although the plaintiffs incarceration was found to be unlawful, they maintained that Article 3 ECHR prohibitions on harsh or degrading treatment prevented them from receiving damages in the United Kingdom. Article 5 guarantees the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to life, liberty, and security; Article 6 guarantees the right to effective remedy; and Article 14 guarantees the right to Article 5 protection. (Prohibition of Discrimination)... According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), violations of Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were found on February 19, 2009, but complaints of inhumane treatment were dismissed, with the exception of those applicants who voluntarily left the United Kingdom, with the exception of Moroccan and French applicants who were not detained[3]. There was a financial incentive.

Legal Issues in Case

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been linked to nine deportees from the United Kingdom. Prior to their deportation, they had all resided in the United Kingdom for a long length of time. Sections 173 207 of the Court of Appeal decision:

An Algerian immigrant to the UK in 1990. For being an overstayer, he was deported by the Secretary of State on July 29th, 1992. Swedish authorities returned A to the United States. To add insult to injury, he was deported after his application for indefinite permission to remain in the United Kingdom was rejected since his children were living in the United Kingdom for more than seven years throughout the duration of his refugee claim. The Secretary of State said that he was directly involved in helping the goals of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, including the UK based terrorist group GSPC. This was the rationale he used to justify his actions[4].

At some point in the past, B landed in the United Kingdom. In 1996, his asylum request was turned down. Secretary of State issued a deportation order against B on February 5, 2002; he was certified for his connections with the leaders of the GSPC in the United Kingdom as well as his logistical assistance to Chechen extremists and GSPC members in Algeria.

In 2000, C arrived in the United Kingdom as an Egyptian refugee. As of March 30, 2001, he had been given permission to remain in the United States. His support for the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), an Al Qaeda affiliate that united with EIJ the previous year, was found on December 17, 2001. To punish him for his involvement recruiting Egyptian Army officers for the EIJ and organising EIJ related acts both in Egypt and overseas, an Egyptian military court condemned C to fifteen years imprisonment while he was out the country[5].

When he was deported back to Algeria in December of 2001, D was labelled a GIA supporter and sympathiser on December 17.

A Tunisian citizen, E, applied for asylum in the UK in 1994, but was turned down in 2001. • The Tunisian Fighting Group, a terrorist organisation with extensive connections to Al Qaida, was on his sponsorship certificate.

An Algerian national who landed in the United Kingdom using a fake Spanish passport in 1994. Several people, including him, were arrested on March 3rd, 2000, on suspicion of breaking the Anti Terrorism Act. The charges against them were eventually dropped. His involvement with the terrorist group GIA on December 17th, 2001, was recognised as evidence that he was a member of that group.

G: the arrival in 1995 of an Algerian asylum seeker in the United Kingdom. On June 5, 2001, he was awarded a six month residency permit despite having been denied a visa. According to the Secretary of States certification dated December 18, 2001, G was an active member of the GSPC.

A Palestinian refugee from Jordan, Abu Rideh was born to stateless parents. When he moved to the United Kingdom in January 1995, he settled in London. Several international terrorist organisations and those with links to Osama Bin Ladens terrorist network, among other things, Abu Rideh was alleged by the Secretary of State in an ATCSA certification issued on December 17, 2001. He received refugee status in 1998.

Moroccan Ajouaou was granted permanent residence in the United Kingdom in 1985 after marrying a British citizen. His expulsion from the nation has taken place since then. When John Negroponte issued deportation orders against Ajouaou in December 2001, he was citing Ajouaous ties to Chechen terrorist organisations, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and his participation in procuring high tech equipment for the GSPC or Islamic extremists in Chechnya.

Because they claim that their incarceration violated their human right to be free from arbitrary arrest, the defendants have filed many appeals (para. 3)[6].

Arguments of Parties

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, the appellants claim that they are being held in violation of their constitutional rights (ECHR). According to them, even if the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) standards were derogated, they would still be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). If these objections to the imprisonment of the appellants are well founded, they will now be examined by the House of Lords (para. 3)[7]. Therefore, it is necessary to assess:

1. whether or whether Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibiting arbitrary detention) might be waived;
2. In the case of a national emergency, would it still be acceptable to deviate from the European Convention on Human Rights?

Interpretation of Law

ECHR Article 5(1) states that no one may be detained or imprisoned except for the purpose of apprehending or imprisoning a person against whom legal action is being taken (f). Only during the deportation procedure may a person be held in custody (para. 8). Except in cases of war or other public emergencies that endanger national life (Article 14 ECHR), there is no need to notify the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (para. 10). If a foreign individual is involved in the planning, execution, or promotion of international terrorist actions, the Human Rights Act 1998 (Derogation Order) 2001 prohibits them from entering the United Kingdom[8].

While debating the issue of whether or not overseas terrorism suspects should be handled differently from domestic terrorists, the House of Lords referred to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (para. 49). There should be no distinction between foreign terrorism suspects based on their nationality or immigration status (para. 53). The 68th chapter of the book of the Bible. The House of Lords voted 5 0 in favour of the petitions. Because it is disproportionate and discriminates against people based on their nationality or immigration status, Articles 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights were deemed incompatible with the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, according to the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001.

Ratio Decidendi of Case

Lord Bingham sought assistance from Europes top court on the definition of the phrase other public emergency, which was defined as a extraordinary condition of crisis or emergency impacting the whole population and jeopardising the organised existence of the community formed of State, The danger must be real or immediate, and it must have a time limit. It is possible that this region would shrink as the issue becomes more political and less legally solid, even if a judicial investigation is stated in paragraph 18[9]. (relative institutional competence). Lord Bingham concludes that the evidence is insufficient to overturn the Secretary of States determination at this critical juncture (paragraph 29).

Outcome of the Case

In the past, it has been argued that governments are not authorised to take whatever action they see appropriate in order to cope with public crises. The use of logical metrics is essential (para. 30). In order to determine proportionality, the House of Lords permitted foreign persons who had been certified and imprisoned to leave the country. Since the House of Lords ruled that these attempts were not only redundant, but also irrational, foreign terrorism suspects may depart willingly if they are able, but the United Kingdom may arrest them indefinitely because of the danger of torture in their home country[10].

Reflection

I am a person who is eager, energetic, and driven. It is my intention to study law in order to contribute to the betterment of society and my own personal well being. I am well versed in every Knock and nook of the legal sector. Studying law provides students with the chance to learn a variety of skills while also exploring many other elements of human existence. It provides you with the opportunity to enhance your thinking skills, strengthen your comprehension, and broaden your experience throughout the whole spectrum of humanities and social sciences disciplines. If you are looking for a career that will allow you to do more than simply pay the bills, look no further than this. Law brings with it a profound feeling of fulfilment and purpose that comes from being of service to others, battling against injustice, and protecting the rights of the innocent. In addition to being financially lucrative, the job that you perform will be personally pleasant and intellectually engaging for you as well. You are not limited to working for others or for any particular organisation; you might start your own practise. Over the course of your legal career, you will acquire marketable talents.

With an LLB or LLB degree, you will be schooled in a variety of areas of dealing with individuals from a variety of different departments. If you are unable to get financial security as a result of your career, it is pointless to pursue it. As long as you can demonstrate your ability to provide outcomes, you will be well compensated for your LLB degree.

In todays culture, lawyers play an important role in interpreting laws, promoting social justice, and safeguarding the rights of their clients. The reasons for becoming a lawyer differ from person to person, but frequent incentives include a comfortable wage, status, and the opportunity to make a difference in society.

This is due to the fact that such a society would not have either a legislative branch or a judicial branch. In society, the goal of law is to either prohibit or encourage a certain set of practises... As a result, life without rules would be fraught with uncertainty when it came to social concerns. Law is required in society for a variety of reasons, the most important of which are: Peoples behaviour must be governed in line with societal standards, which includes contract laws, regulatory laws, prohibition laws, personal laws, and other similar legislation. To strike a balance between the harm done by the victim and the harm done to the individual and society as a whole.

A legal degree opens the door to a plethora of diverse possibilities. However, in addition to the skills and information necessary to become a successful lawyer, you will also obtain essential skills and knowledge that can be applied to a variety of sectors, preparing you for nearly any job.

References

Black Branch J, The Derogation Of Rights Under The UK Human Rights Act: Diminishing International Standards? (2001) 22 Statute Law Review

Caparas P, Optional Protocol To The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights: Communication To The UN Human Rights Committee Concerning The Philippiness Violation Of The Human Rights Of Children Prisoners Under The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR) [2005] SSRN Electronic Journal

Dyer A, Can Charters Of Rights Limit Penal Populism? Irreducible Life Sentences, Disproportionate Sentences And Preventive Detention In Australia And Under The Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) & The European Convention On Human Rights [2021] CrimRxiv

Feldman D, United Kingdom: House Of Lords On Anti Terrorism, Crime And Security Act 2001 In A. And Others V. Secretary Of State For The Home Department And X And Another V. Secretary Of State For The Home Department, Decision Of 16 December 2004 (2005) 1 European Constitutional Law Review

Fenwick H, The Anti–Terrorism, Crime And Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response To 11 September? (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review

Galani S, Terrorist Hostage Taking And Human Rights: Protecting Victims Of Terrorism Under The European Convention On Human Rights (2019) 19 Human Rights Law Review

Meško G, and Lobnikar B, Marina Caparini And Otwin Marenin (Eds), Transforming Police In Central And Eastern Europe – Process And Progress, DCAF – Geneva Centre For The Democratic Control Of Armed Forces/ LIT, 2004. [2006] The Journal of power institutions in post soviet societies

The Convention For The Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms (1982) 4 Human Rights Quarterly

UK 2002: The Official Yearbook At The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland (2002) 39 Choice Reviews Online

Vakulenko A, COMPLIANCE OF UKRAINIAN LAW AND PRACTICE WITH ARTICLE 5 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (2004) 4 Human Rights Law Review

[1] J. Black Branch, The Derogation Of Rights Under The UK Human Rights Act: Diminishing International Standards? (2001) 22 Statute Law Review.

[2] Sofia Galani, Terrorist Hostage Taking And Human Rights: Protecting Victims Of Terrorism Under The European Convention On Human Rights (2019) 19 Human Rights Law Review.

[3] A. Vakulenko, COMPLIANCE OF UKRAINIAN LAW AND PRACTICE WITH ARTICLE 5 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (2004) 4 Human Rights Law Review.

[4] UK 2002: The Official Yearbook At The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland (2002) 39 Choice Reviews Online.

[5] Gorazd Meško and Branko Lobnikar, Marina Caparini And Otwin Marenin (Eds), Transforming Police In Central And Eastern Europe – Process And Progress, DCAF – Geneva Centre For The Democratic Control Of Armed Forces/ LIT, 2004. [2006] The Journal of power institutions in post soviet societies.

[6] The Convention For The Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms (1982) 4 Human Rights Quarterly.

[7] David Feldman, United Kingdom: House Of Lords On Anti Terrorism, Crime And Security Act 2001 In A. And Others V. Secretary Of State For The Home Department And X And Another V. Secretary Of State For The Home Department, Decision Of 16 December 2004 (2005) 1 European Constitutional Law Review.

[8] Andrew Dyer, Can Charters Of Rights Limit Penal Populism? Irreducible Life Sentences, Disproportionate Sentences And Preventive Detention In Australia And Under The Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) & The European Convention On Human Rights [2021] CrimRxiv.

[9] Perfecto Caparas, Optional Protocol To The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights: Communication To The UN Human Rights Committee Concerning The Philippiness Violation Of The Human Rights Of Children Prisoners Under The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR) [2005] SSRN Electronic Journal.

[10] Helen Fenwick, The Anti–Terrorism, Crime And Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response To 11 September? (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review.