In a unanimous decision handed down today, the Supreme Court has determined that Article 6 ECHR applies to a challenge to the imposition of a terrorism-related Temporary Exclusion Order (“TEO”) where the TEO imposes obligations interfering with an individual’s civil rights.
TEOs are administrative measures, introduced by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which the Secretary of State may impose on UK citizens who are outside the UK in order to control the manner/timing of their return to the UK, and impose obligations upon their return.
In 2018, the Secretary of State imposed a TEO on the Claimant based on an allegation that the Claimant was involved in terrorism related activity in Syria. Upon his return to the UK, the Secretary of State subjected him to various restrictive obligations.
The Claimant has applied to the court for a review of the Secretary of State’s decision to impose the TEO, as well as the obligations he was subject to under the TEO. The Claimant has consistently denied he was involved in terrorism related activity in Syria, but almost the entirety of the case against him is contained in CLOSED material which is withheld from him. He argued that pursuant to the disclosure principles identified in AF (No 3) v SSHD [2010] 2 AC 269 he was entitled to a gist of the allegations against him so he could respond to them.
The question for the Supreme Court was whether Article 6, which protects the right to a fair hearing, is engaged by the review of the decision to impose the TEO.
The Supreme Court held that Article 6 applies to a challenge to the imposition of a TEO where, as here, the obligations imposed by the TEO were sufficiently intrusive to engage the Claimant’s “civil rights” within the meaning of Article 6.
Dan Squires KC, Darryl Hutcheon and Rosalind Comyn acted for the Claimant instructed by William Kenyon at ITN Solicitors.
Useful link(s)