News

Divisional Court gives judgment in case concerning SIAC's disclosure obligations
24 January 2011

R(BB) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Secretary of State for the Home Department

Robin Tam QC, leading James Strachan, represented the Home Secretary in the Divisional Court in a case concerning bail proceedings in the contest of appeals to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ('SIAC') under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 ('the 1997 Act') against decisions to deport persons on grounds of national security. Those proceedings are subject to Article 5(4) ECHR and its implicit procedural requirements.  

In R(Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin), it was held that the standard of disclosure thereby required was the same as laid down by the ECtHR in A v United Kingdom (2009) EHRR 29 for challenges to detention under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The issue in BB was whether a different approach was required where SIAC had already reached conclusions in the deportation appeal that the appellant was a danger to national security.

The Divisional Court (Richards LJ and Sweeney J) held: that the Article 5(4) procedural requirements as set out in Cart and A v UKapplied equally to bail proceedings under the 1997 Act after SIAC has given judgment in the substantive appeal as they do before substantive judgment is given. There was no justification for dropping below the 'bottom line' that of Article 5(4), that a person must have sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to given effective instructions.

The judgment can be found on Lawtel: [2011] EWHC 336 (Admin).