scholarly journals Non-disclosure of information in the prosecution of preventive detention regimes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ha Phuong Mai
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Preventive Detention ◽  
Full Disclosure ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Control Order

<p>Preventive detention has been adopted as a measure of counter-terrorism law in many jurisdictions. It has been authorised under the Security Certificate regime in Canada and the Control Order regime in United Kingdoms. Since their adoption, the two regimes have become objects of much debate. The reason is that they both legalised the use of secret evidence and secret hearings in their prosecution. The issue arose whether the non-disclosure of such information in a judicial review to decide the reasonableness of a control order/a security certificate deprives terrorist suspects from a fair hearing. This paper explores that question by analysing two landmark cases in the United Kingdom and Canada: AF (No 3) and Charkaoui I. The paper’s thesis is that the findings of the courts in these two cases are reasonable. However, the alternative to full disclosure as adopted by both the United Kingdom and Canada – the Special Advocate model – is currently too limited. This paper subsequently offers solution for this: the judges should have a more active role in investigating the relevant facts of the cases.</p>

scholarly journals Non-disclosure of information in the prosecution of preventive detention regimes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ha Phuong Mai
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Preventive Detention ◽  
Full Disclosure ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Control Order

<p>Preventive detention has been adopted as a measure of counter-terrorism law in many jurisdictions. It has been authorised under the Security Certificate regime in Canada and the Control Order regime in United Kingdoms. Since their adoption, the two regimes have become objects of much debate. The reason is that they both legalised the use of secret evidence and secret hearings in their prosecution. The issue arose whether the non-disclosure of such information in a judicial review to decide the reasonableness of a control order/a security certificate deprives terrorist suspects from a fair hearing. This paper explores that question by analysing two landmark cases in the United Kingdom and Canada: AF (No 3) and Charkaoui I. The paper’s thesis is that the findings of the courts in these two cases are reasonable. However, the alternative to full disclosure as adopted by both the United Kingdom and Canada – the Special Advocate model – is currently too limited. This paper subsequently offers solution for this: the judges should have a more active role in investigating the relevant facts of the cases.</p>

The Implementation of Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Principles and Problems

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-564
Author(s):  
Dawn Oliver
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
Executive Agencies ◽  
The Relationship

First, I want to express my gratitude and sense of honour in being invited to deliver the Lionel Cohen lecture for 1995. The relationship between the Israeli and the British legal systems is a close and mutually beneficial one, and we in Britain in particular owe large debts to the legal community in Israel. This is especially the case in my field, public law, where distinguished academics have enriched our academic literature, notably Justice Zamir, whose work on the declaratory judgment has been so influential. Israeli courts, too, have made major contributions to the development of the common law generally and judicial review very notably.In this lecture I want to discuss the process of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, and to explore some of the difficulties that lie in the way of reform. Some quite radical reforms to our system of government — the introduction of executive agencies in the British civil service, for instance—have been introduced without resort to legislation. There has been a spate of reform to local government and the National Health Service.

Revocation of Citizenship and Rule of Law: How Judicial Review Defeated Britain's First Denaturalization Regime

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Weil ◽  
Nicholas Handler
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political Order ◽  
Foreign Born ◽  
The Past ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Global Trend ◽  
The Right ◽  
Western Democracies

Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has deprived an increasing number of British subjects of their citizenship. This policy, known as “denaturalization,” has been applied with particular harshness in cases where foreign-born subjects have been accused of terrorist activity. The increase is part of a global trend. In recent years, Canada, Australia, France, and the Netherlands have either debated or enacted denaturalization statutes. But Britain remains an outlier among Western democracies. Since 2006, the United Kingdom home secretary has revoked the citizenship of at least 373 Britons, of whom at least 53 have had alleged links to terrorism. This is more than the total number of revocations by Canada, France, Australia, and Netherlands combined. These developments are troubling, as the right to be secure in one's citizenship has been a cornerstone of the postwar European liberal political order, and of the international community's commitment to human rights.

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

Introduction The Birth and Growth of Judicial Review in the Civil Law World

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
The United Kingdom

This book is about the stunning birth and growth of judicial review in the civil law world, since 1945. In Volume I of this two-volume series, I showed that judicial review was born and grew in common law G-20 constitutional democracies and in Israel primarily: (1) when there is a need for a federalism or a separation of powers umpire, (2) when there is a rights from wrongs dynamic, (3) when there is borrowing, and (4) when the political structure of a country’s institutions leaves space within which the judiciary can operate. The countries discussed in Volume I were the following: (1) the United States, (2) Canada, (3) Australia, (4) India, (5) Israel, (6) South Africa, and (7) the United Kingdom....

scholarly journals Le contrôle juridictionnel de l'action administrative devant les juridictions anglaises

2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-880
Author(s):  
Sir Gordon Slynn
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
The Way

This article outlines the difficulties which were felt to exist in the prerogative orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition in the United Kingdom, despite important developments which had taken place in their use. It describes in detail the recommendations of the Law Commission and the changes introduced both by Rules of Court and legislation. The former procedures are replaced by an application for judicial review, though the basis upon which relief is granted remains substantially the same. Recent cases show the way in which the new procedure has developed. Distinctions are drawn between the test to be applied on the application for leave and on the final hearing, and between the proceeding by way of judicial review to challenge the acts of public authorities and actions where purely private rights are claimed. This article shows the way in which the possibility of exceptions to this latter distinction has been established and suggests that the ambit of the new procedure is still in course of development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document