High Court decides that Article 6 is engaged and minimum disclosure requirements apply in judicial review of the National Crime Agency’s refusal to provide consent for transfer of settlement monies to individual sanctioned by US.
The High Court has handed down a judgment determining two preliminary issues in R (Amanat Ullah) v National Crime Agency [2023] EWHC 1440.
The Claimant was captured by British soldiers in Iraq in 2004 and handed over to US armed forces. He was held at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan for ten years without charge. He alleges he was tortured by UK and US personnel. Upon release, he brought a civil claim against the UK Government which was settled for a substantial sum without admission as to liability. Given the Claimant’s name was included as an alias of an individual listed on a US sanctions list, the Claimant’s solicitors sought consent from the NCA to transfer the settlement monies to the Claimant. The NCA refused consent under section 21ZA of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Claimant brought judicial review proceedings against the NCA.
The High Court held that Article 6 ECHR applies to the Claimant’s challenge to the refusal to provide consent because the proceedings are “directly decisive” of his civil right to access his settlement money, and the disclosure principles identified in AF (No.3) v SSHD [2010] 2 AC 269 apply to the proceedings. The High Court ruled that the disclosure provided to date does not satisfy the requirements of AF (No.3).
Dan Squires KC and Rosalind Comyn acted for the Claimant instructed by William Kenyon at ITN Solicitors.
Sarah Hannett KC acted on behalf of the Defendant instructed by the Government Legal Department.
James Stansfeld acted on behalf of the Interested Parties, instructed by the Government Legal Department, and led by Ben Watson KC.