header-logo header-logo

05 June 2008 / Susan Nash
Issue: 7324 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Human rights law update

CONDITIONS IN DETENTION
EXTRADITION AND DEPORTATION
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

CONDITIONS IN DETENTION
The applicants in A and others v United Kingdom; (App no 3455/05) had been allegedly involved in terrorist groups with links to Al Qa’eda. They were detained under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ACSA 2001) which provided that certified individuals could be detained pending deportation—despite the fact that their removal from the UK was unlikely because of a risk that they would face torture or ill treatment if returned to their country of origin. Each applicant had been certified as an international terrorist and initially detained at Belmarsh Prison.

While some applicants elected to leave the UK, three were transferred to Broadmoor secure mental hospital following deterioration in their mental health, and another was released on bail because of concern over his mental health.

Following a visit to the detainees in February 2002 and March 2004, the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) published a report which was critical of detention conditions in Belmarsh Prison

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll