Human rights - Confidentiality - Deportation orders - Terrorism
Z v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; and 11 other cases against (1) and (2) brought by U, G, Y, B, H, A, OO, TT, QQ, AS and Z; R (on the application of R) v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD (Admin) (Mr Justice Collins): 27 January 2009
In joined cases the court was required to determine the extent to which the defendant secretaries of state could provide information contained in the asylum claim of a failed asylum seeker to that failed asylum seeker’s state of origin.
The first claimant (Z), an Algerian national, had been arrested in the UK for offences under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and with fraud. On a search of Z’s flat the police found literature pertaining to bomb making, various chemicals that could be combined to explosive effect and forged identity documents. Terrorism charges against Z were not tried but he was convicted of fraud. Z made an asylum claim in which he stated that he was a supporter of the Groupe Islamique Armée (GIA), a terrorist organisation operating in Algeria. That claim was refused and the first secretary of state made an order that Z be deported to the Algeria on the grounds that his presence in the UK was contrary to national security. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission determined that Z was involved with providing the GIA with logistical support; that he was a threat to national security; and that his deportation would not breach his rights under articles 3, 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. In various communications the secretaries of state had informed the Algerian authorities of G’s personal details and his involvement with the GIA. The secretaries of states received assurances from the Algerian authorities that Z’s human rights would be respected if returned and that he would be retried in respect of a conviction in his absence. The remaining claimants were the subjects of removal orders to Jordan or Algeria or Libya. Z claimed declarations that the transmission by the secretaries of states to the Algerian authorities of the information pertaining to his involvement with the GIA and his personal details amounted to a breach of his rights under the convention and a breach of confidence contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. The remaining claimants sought, among other things, pre-action disclosure.
Held: (1) It was important to have regard, in the context of cases that concerned terrorist activities, to UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) and the obligations on member states to deny safe haven to those involved in terrorist activities or to allow them to abuse refugee status. In addition, the convention relating to article 1(f)(c) of the Status of Refugees 1951 (UN) stated that a person who had committed acts contrary to the principles of the UN could not come within its terms. However, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights indicated that such an individual should not be deported if his human rights would be breached under articles 2 or 3. In the instant case, the Algerian authorities had given assurances in relation to Z’s human rights that could be relied on. In obtaining such assurances the relevant secretary of state had to be careful not to impart more information than was strictly necessary to obtain the assurances. It was obvious that, where a person was being returned because it was said that his presence in the UK was contrary to the public good, the country of origin would want to know what was said about that person. In the context of terrorism cases any admissions of terrorist involvement would be highly relevant. In all the circumstances the statements made by Z in his claim for asylum did not attract the degree of confidentiality for which he contended. The personal information pertaining to Z given by the secretaries of state was required for the proper identification of Z and it could not be said that it was necessary to inform Z before such personal information could be passed on to the Algerian authorities.
(2) It was appropriate to dismiss the applications for disclosure brought by the remaining claimants, A v B (Investigatory Powers Tribunal: Jurisdiction) (2008) EWHC 1512 (Admin), [2008] 4 All ER 511 considered.
Judgment for defendants.
Raza Husain, Daniel Squires (instructed by Malik & Malik) for the claimants; Lisa Giovannetti (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the defendants.
No comments yet