"If you've done nothing wrong" & section 7

[ahinton]

Well of course they will try to appeal; they wouldn't be much cop as lawyers if they did not. But the fact they might appeal doesn't alter the judgement as it stands.

Of course not, otherwise there would be no point in any kind of appeals process, but it may not end at the Supreme Court anyway, since there is European law to take into consideration and that may well take due precedence over British law if the latter is found to be inadequate.

[Pabmusic]

Good spot, Mr Pee. But in that case she appeared to be appealing against Sect 7 itself, as breaching her human rights, not that it had been invoked wrongly by the police. She lost her case because the High Court ruled that the legislation itself was sound.

I think you have it there, FF. Her argument seems to have been that Schedule 7 breached the ECHR. The High Court doesn't agree. Presumably Miranda's argument will be that Schedule 7 confers no power to detain someone for a reason that falls outside the rather narrow definition of terrorism. This is quite a different point.

[Pabmusic]

Of course not, otherwise there would be no point in any kind of appeals process, but it may not end at the Supreme Court anyway, since there is European law to take into consideration and that may well take due precedence over British law if the latter is found to be inadequate.

This was a High Court decision, so there will be a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, then to the Supreme Court, and then to the ECHR. But the thing to remember is that this decision seems to say nothing more than that Schedule 7 (the right to detain on suspicion of terrorism) does not contravene the ECHR. It does not answer the point in Miranda's case, which is whether the authorities can use that process for reasons unconnected with terrorism, or whether the definition of terrorism given in the Act can be widened. This last point (the widening of a statutory definition without new legislation) would be a seriously important decision, overturning centuries of case-law.

[ahinton]

This was a High Court decision, so there will be a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, then to the Supreme Court, and then to the ECHR. But the thing to remember is that this decision seems to say nothing more than that Schedule 7 (the right to detain on suspicion of terrorism) does not contravene the ECHR. It does not answer the point in Miranda's case, which is whether the authorities can use that process for reasons unconnected with terrorism, or whether the definition of terrorism given in the Act can be widened. This last point (the widening of a statutory definition without new legislation) would be a seriously important decision, overturning centuries of case-law.

Indeed, but there remains the question as to whether the EU authorities themselves would agree or disagree about Section 7's compliance with ECHR; it will, after all, be no more than a decision based on the opinion of a single UK High Court judge until actually put to the test there (not that I'm seeking to undermine the authority of that judge, but judges overturning other judges' decisions is hardly unknown, even within UK).

Also, it seems less than clear whether in this case the prosecution has done its job properly in going down the right route because, as you say, it seems to have been handled on a different basis to that of Mr Miranda and this might have been less than wise if indeed the detention breached Section 7 on the same or similar gronds to those invoked by Mr Miranda's lawyers.

"Widening a statutory definition without new legislation" would indeed overturn not only centuries of case law but also the very principles under which it is put to the test, a thoughat tht occurred to me a day or so ago in the context of the possible attempts by the UK government to get around what might otherwise have seemed to be legal impedance to their apparent intentions in terms of action in relation to the Syrian atrocity (but, of course, that's now on the back burner again, at lfor the time being).

[Pabmusic]

Indeed, but there remains the question as to whether the EU authorities themselves would agree or disagree about Section 7's compliance with ECHR; it will, after all, be no more than a decision based on the opinion of a single UK High Court judge until actually put to the test there (not that I'm seeking to undermine the authority of that judge, but judges overturning other judges' decisions is hardly unknown, even within UK).

You are absolutely right. This was a 'first instance' case; many such decisions are overturned on appeal, although many are not. I know nothing about the case other than what was in the BBC report, but it does say that the appellant's husband is in prison for terrorism offences. At the very least, this distinguishes it from Miranda's case. But anyway, it seems that the issue was not the circumstances of the particular detention, but rather whether the very law was lawful in the first place (that is, does Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act breach the ECHR?).

Also, it seems less than clear whether in this case the prosecution has done its job properly in going down the right route because, as you say, it seems to have been handled on a different basis to that of Mr Miranda and this might have been less than wise if indeed the detention breached Section 7 on the same or similar gronds to those invoked by Mr Miranda's lawyers.

The Court of Appeal will (usually) confine itself to the grounds of appeal, so it's understandable that the Respondents (the 'prosecution') will respond only to those grounds. I imagine that this incident happened when Miranda was unknown (except to the security services!).

"Widening a statutory definition without new legislation" would indeed overturn not only centuries of case law but also the very principles under which it is put to the test, a thoughat tht occurred to me a day or so ago in the context of the possible attempts by the UK government to get around what might otherwise have seemed to be legal impedance to their apparent intentions in terms of action in relation to the Syrian atrocity (but, of course, that's now on the back burner again, at lfor the time being).

This won't happen; I was shroud-waving. It is a very well established principle of English law (Scottish law, too, I believe) that courts will interpret a statute (act of parliament) narrowly, only accepting what is contained in the statute and not attempting to 'second guess' the legislators. That principle won't be overturned by this case.

Whilst I'll be first to admit that one can't guess how the court will explain itself - so that a surprise could happen - the principle is "if it's not clear from the wording of the Act, the court won't make up for the deficiency".

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The interesting thing about the Beghal case was that she lives in the UK. Miranda doesn't. Presumably(?) if he wants to bring a case similar to Beghal's he will have to be present? In which case he could face charges associated with his transporting state secrets.

[ahinton]

The interesting thing about the Beghal case was that she lives in the UK. Miranda doesn't. Presumably(?) if he wants to bring a case similar to Beghal's he will have to be present? In which case he could face charges associated with his transporting state secrets.

I'm not sure about that but I've no doubt that he and his lawyers wll have discussed that possible risk if indeed it might pertain; what I would say about it, however, is that, as he was detained for almost nine hours and if there is any realistic possibility of his being fairly charged with transporting state secrets and no accusations of or even references to involvment in terrorism on his part in accordance with the provisions of Section 7, why has he not already been charged with transpoting state secrets? If he would only be charged with doing that if he instigates litigation against the authorities for breach of Section 7 it would look like - and indeed surely be - an act of revenge to issue such charges.

[amateur51]

NSA employee spied on nine women without detection, internal file shows

Twelve cases of unauthorised surveillance documented in letter from NSA's inspector general to senator Chuck Grassley

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-spied-detection-internal-memo

I wonder how many cases of unauthorised spying have been detected and have been punished?

[MrGongGong]

It's fine
"don't worry your pretty little head about it"
because , as MrPee told us before
if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear !

Ok now ?
Heads down in the sand everyone

[Beef Oven!]

It's fine
"don't worry your pretty little head about it"
if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear !

Ok now ?
Heads down in the sand everyone

Agreed, particularly regarding the victims of the perfidious European Arrest Warrant. Bloody UberPoliceStat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MrGongGong]

Agreed, particularly regarding the victims of the perfidious European Arrest Warrant. Bloody UberPoliceStat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you have confirmed the need for the ECHR
we can't trust our politicians to protect our rights ......

Welcome to sanity NOW go and get the La Monte Young CDs out :-)

[Beef Oven!]

I think you have confirmed the need for the ECHR
we can't trust our politicians to protect our rights ......

Welcome to sanity NOW go and get the La Monte Young CDs out :-)

Sadly, because these two things come from the same political elite, they will decide, as they have done, that EAWs trump ECHR.

Please confine your dangerous thoughts to music, where they benefit us most ;-)

[amateur51]

Apologies for posting here but I'm having no joy in searching for the original discussion about this event. Does anyone know if The Basement is searchable?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=London+Terror+arrests+two+held&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=pNz5U5y3H-nH8gfG1YCoDg

Given that we're ten months down the road since these two suspects were arrested do we know what's happened to them?

Does anyone know of a searchable official source where one can search for progress on cases that have yet to come to court?

[amateur51]

Oh dear, you've got to feel sorry for poor Macaroon, on the very day that he announces that the next Tory government would dispense with the Human Rights Act, this has to happen ...

Moazzam Begg to be released as terror charges dropped

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29442623

[ahinton]

Oh dear, you've got to feel sorry for poor Macaroon, on the very day that he announces that the next Tory government would dispense with the Human Rights Act

He was aiming to try for that one last time around until my MP (who wasn't an MP at that time but was elected at the last General Election) quietly wised him up on the sheer folly of abolishing the UK Human Rights Act; folly not only in the more obvious sense but also because, even after ditching that Act (should he get his way), there would remain the European Declaration of Human Rights (EDHR), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to all of which the UK government is currently a signatory so, unless the Tories not only achieve an outright majority at the next General Election (which remains in serious doubt) but Cameron (or his successor as Tory party leader) were also able subsequently to persuade a majority of the government that the UK HRA in unnecessary and therefore destined for the scrap heap (which is almost certainly even more in doubt), he and his party henchpersons would have to try to release UK from signatory status in respect of all three, which could hardly even be attempted without the eyes of the world becoming well focussed on such a move.

Oh and, by the way, I do not feel sorry for Mr Cameron. I might feel sorry for Mrs Cameron, but not for Mr Cameron...