header-logo header-logo

05 September 2014
Issue: 7620 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

War—Prisoners of war

R (on the application of Hussein) v Secretary of State for Defence [2014] EWCA Civ 1087, [2014] All ER (D) 298 (Jul)

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant secretary of state’s policy, authorising "challenge direct" for use in the interrogation of persons captured by UK forces in situations of armed conflict. The divisional court dismissed the application and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the conduct authorised by the policy did not constitute inhumane treatment, coercion, threatening or insulting conduct, or unpleasant or disadvantageous behaviour. Further, there was nothing inherent in the policy which gave rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful conduct. In any event, the claimant lacked standing to bring the proceedings.

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll