in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: [...]. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.
Answer
'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate'
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: [...]. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: [...]. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.
Answer
'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate'
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: <span>'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate'. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.