header-logo header-logo

30 July 2009
Issue: 7380 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Terrorism

Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG (proceedings under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005) [2009] EWCA Civ 786, [2009] All ER (D) 247 (Jul)

The general language of s 1(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was insufficient to authorise the inclusion of a control order of a general requirement to submit to searches of the person, whether on the demand of anyone authorised by the Home Secretary or only of a police officer.

The absence of such a power from the list of specific obligations in and following s 1(4) was as consistent with deliberate as with accidental omission. Even if the omission of a power to compel submission to personal search was a legislative oversight, however, it was not the role of the courts, in a matter touching fundamental liberties, to supply what Parliament might have inserted.

 

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll