XX (Algeria) (FC) and XX (Algeria) (FC) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) XX (Algeria) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (formerly VV (Jordan) (FC) and XX (Algeria) (FC) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Depar
- 2012
- United Kingdom
Topics
Membership in a terrorist organisation Public securityLegal bases
European Convention on Human Rights United Kingdom: Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997Courts
The Supreme Court (UKSC), United KingdomLaws
Torture, degrading and inhuman and treatment Right to lifeFacts
The appellants, all Algerian nationals, were suspected terrorists whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to Algeria. Algeria is known for allowing torture, with no state official having been previously convicted for it. Due to this, the Secretary of State obtained assurances from the Algerian Government that the appellants’ rights not to be tortured or become subjected to other ill treatment will be respected upon their return to Algeria. The case was heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). SIAC rules allow the Commission to order a ‘closed material procedures’ if the Secretary of State wishes to adduce evidence which, for reasons of national security or other sufficient public interest reasons, cannot safely be communicated to the other party. However, in this case, it was one of the appellants who wished to adduce evidence from a witness (“W”), who had claimed to have inside knowledge of the position in Algeria and had asserted that, notwithstanding the Algerian Government’s official assurances, those in the appellants’ positions were in fact likely to be subjected, on return, to torture or other ill-treatment. W was prepared to give evidence in the appellants’ appeals to SIAC only on one condition: that his identity and evidence would by order remain absolutely and irrevocably confidential to SIAC and the parties to the appeals. In essence, W was requesting for a closed material procedure excluding the Secretary of State. W was concerned that the Secretary of State might otherwise seek to communicate his evidence to the Algerian authorities, if only to assess its veracity and reliability, and that her doing so would place him and/or his family in peril. The Secretary of State objected to such an order being made on the grounds that she would be unable to participate effectively in the conduct of the appeals before SIAC due to being unable to test either the validity of the reasons asserted by W for his need for confidentiality or the substance of W's evidence itself.
Legal grounds
Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) Act 1997; Article 2 & Article 3 of the ECHR.
Findings
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeals on the basis of the significance of the need to do all that is necessary to protect the appellants’ human rights.