Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v XX (Appellant) [2010] UKSC 24
- 2010
- United Kingdom
Topics
Public securityLegal bases
European Convention on Human RightsCourts
The Supreme Court (UKSC), United KingdomLaws
Right to Liberty Right to respect for private and family lifeFacts
Mr. XX is an Ethiopian national who migrated to the United Kingdom with his family in 1992 aged 14. In 1999 the applicant's family was granted indefinite leave to remain (permanent residency). In May 2005 the applicant travelled to Somalia and then Ethiopia where he was put under detention by Ethiopian authorities in December 2006. The Secretary of State made the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom under suspicion of his involvement in terrorism. On the applicant’s return to the United Kingdom in December 2006 he was detained under immigration laws until July 2007 pending removal and was later released on bail with conditions. In January 2008 the decision to exclude the applicant from the United Kingdom was removed, following a control order made against him by the Secretary of State which included a 16-hour curfew and an electronic tag. The control order at first required the applicant to live at an address in North London near his family and friends. The terms of the control order were modified by the Secretary of State, which required the applicant to move to an address in the Midlands 150 miles away from his friends and family. The applicant appealed this decision to the High Court.
Legal grounds
Article 5 of the ECHR, Article 8 of the ECHR; Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Control Orders).
Findings
In August 2008 the High Court allowed the appeal, which removed the appellant's obligation to live in the Midlands arguing this would cause social isolation and deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of ECHR. Later this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that his allegation of interference with family life (Article 8) was justified in the interests of national security. In July 2009 the applicant’s control order was revoked under the Secretary of State's decision that the applicant should be deported on grounds of national security. Pending the applicant's deportation, the conditions of living in the Midlands and an increased curfew of 18 hours remained. The applicant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in June 2010. The court approved the appeal and restored the High Court's previous decision that Mr. XX’s social isolation (particularly through his being separated from his family) constituted a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR.