This paper examines the House of Lords' landmark decision in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, commonly known as the Belmarsh detainees case. It discusses the judicial reasoning of the majority, led by Lord Bingham, which held that the indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects without trial was unlawful and discriminatory under the Human Rights Act 1998. The paper also considers Lord Hoffmann's distinct reasoning — that no genuine national emergency existed — and addresses the government's counter-argument that the judiciary lacked access to the intelligence necessary to make such determinations. The case is presented as a significant illustration of intensified judicial review in the post-9/11 security context.
The ruling in the Belmarsh detainees case — A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 — was widely seen as a major victory for the human rights movement. The case involved twelve foreign terrorist suspects who were held in prison without trial. The House of Lords ruled that these individuals were being detained unlawfully and should be released (Tomkins, 2005). Shortly after the decision, the government changed its policy from holding foreign suspects in indefinite detention to placing them under house arrest. This shift illustrates the broader changes that have occurred in how the government approaches the detention of terrorist suspects.
Government policy regarding terrorist suspects changed considerably after the events of September 11, 2001. In response to those attacks, the government was granted expanded authority in cases where national security was believed to be at risk. Belmarsh Prison was where most of these individuals were held without trial. At the time, many British commentators and protestors argued that Belmarsh represented the United Kingdom's equivalent of Guantanamo Bay, and that the terror suspects held there were being treated unjustly. The eventual ruling was widely regarded as consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998.
From the government's perspective, the Human Rights Act was viewed as an obstacle to effective counter-terrorism. As former Home Secretary Dr. John Reid stated, "There is a very serious [terrorism] threat, and I am the first to admit that the means we have of fighting it are so inadequate that we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs." He further argued that political pressure in cases such as the Belmarsh detainees' situation stemmed from the prioritisation of partisan concerns over national security (Travis, 2007).
Despite these views from senior government officials, the judges voted 8 to 1 that imprisoning the detainees was unlawful. Lord Bingham and the majority held that, although the detainees could be regarded as a potential threat to national security, holding them was not "strictly required" and was therefore both unlawful and discriminatory. Furthermore, in Lord Bingham's view and that of the other majority judges, the case fell to be decided in accordance with international — specifically European — jurisprudence rather than purely domestic United Kingdom jurisprudence. This approach to fundamental human rights permitted the court to draw on the legal standards of other nations in reaching its judgment (Poole, 2005).
"No national emergency; domestic constitutional history"
"Government argues judiciary lacks intelligence access"
"Landmark shift in judicial review intensity"
You’re 51% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.