XX (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Respondent) [2016] UKSC 3
- 2016
- United Kingdom
Topics
Islamic extremismLegal bases
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 Charter of the United Nations of 1945Courts
The Supreme Court (UKSC), United KingdomLaws
Right to a fair trial Proportionality Torture, degrading and inhuman and treatment Right to respect for private and family life Right to propertyFacts
Mr. XX was originally an Egyptian national who migrated to the United Kingdom in 1994 under claims of harassment by Egyptian security forces. In 2005 the applicant was given an 'asset freeze' as requested by the Egyptian Government to the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee, which was applied within the United Kingdom through the European Union Regulation 881. This was given on the basis that the applicant was associated with Al-Qaeda, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. On the 14th of September 2005, the applicant appealed this decision within the Divisional Court to remove the United Kingdom's hold which was denied. The UK then decided that the applicant no longer met the criteria for the designation and from 2009-2012 supported his de-listing from the Egyptian Governments 'asset freeze' list. In 2010 the applicant requested that on his delisting the following reasoning should be added: that some of the information obtained by the Egyptian Government was allegedly obtained by torture which tainted the United Nation committees decision; the appellant could not peacefully enjoy his property; the committee’s proof of 'reasonable grounds' was insufficient; and the initial review was given within the wrong context.
Legal grounds
Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002; Article 12 of the UDHR.
Findings
The appellant's initial 2010 appeal was denied by the courts, and in 2014 the Security Council found new evidence which linked the applicant’s support for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and recommended that the applicant be retained on the list. The applicant was given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the 27th January 2016. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mr. XX’s appeal. All the three grounds of appeal – that the evidence was obtained by torture, that his property rights were violated and that the standard of proof of “reasonable grounds for suspicion” was too low, were rejected. On "reasonable grounds" the court held that it is based on assessment of future risks not on determining whether someone has done something wrong.