header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 June 2008 / Susan Nash
Issue: 7324 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Human rights law update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll