R (on the application of Gentle & Others) v (1) The Prime Minister (2) The Secretary of State for Defence (3) The Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 1078

The Queen on the application of Singh v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2006] EWCA Civ 1118

R (Boughton & others) v HM Treasury [2006] EWCA Civ 504

R (on the application of Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda) v the Secretary of State For Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 327

R (on the application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and others) v the Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ 1609

Hereford Waste Watchers Limited v Hereford Council [2005] EWHC 191 (Admin)

John Blewett v Derbyshire Waste Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1508

R (on the application of Purja and others) v Ministry of Defence [2003] All ER (D) 307 (Feb), (2003) Times, 10 March

R (on the application of Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003] EWHC 07 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 197 (Jan)

R (on the application of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v Prime Minister and others [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 245 (Dec), (2002) Times, 27 December

R (Gurung and others) v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 409 (Nov), (2002) Times, 28 December

R v Hampshire CC, ex parte Vetterlein [2001] All ER (D) 146 (Jun)

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] EWCA Civ 03, [2002] All ER (D) 220 (Jan), (2002) Independent, 31 January, CA

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] All ER (D) 345, (2001) Times, 1 May, QBD

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2002] 3 WLR 875, [2002] JPL 937 [2002] 05 EG 132 (CS), (2002) Times, 1 February [2002] All ER (D) 149 (Jan), CA

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2000] All ER (D) 1102, (2000) Times, 5 October, [2001] EHLR 94

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 5 [2002] 05 EG 131 (CS) 131

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 4 [2000] All ER (D) 1300, (2000) Times, 8 November, QBD

R v North Warwicksire CC, ex parte Howe and Jones [2001] All ER (D) 16 (Mar)

R v Leicestershire CC, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothorpe Action Group [2000] JPL 1266

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Turnbull (2000) Env LR 715

R v The Environment Agency ex parte Sellers and Another [1999] Env LR 73-113

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Leam

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Gibson

Lubrizol Limited v Tyndallwoods, Solicitors (1998) The Lawyer, 24 April 1998, QBD

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) Env LR 719, [1998] JPL 787, CA

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) ENDS 276, (1998) Env LR 560, QBD

R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods (1997) JPL 958, (1998) Env LR 277, CA

R v North Somerset District Council and Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited ex parte Garnett and Pierssene (1997) JPL 1015, QBD

R v Somerset County Council and ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon (1997) JPL 1030, [1997] C.O.D 227, QBD

R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Brown [1997] Env LR 100, (1997) JPL 337, QBD

R (Al Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence - House of Lords Hearing, October 2007

PIL is acting for a dual British and Iraqi citizen, Hilal Al Jedda, who has been interned in Iraq since October 2004. The Government argues that Mr Al Jedda's right to liberty under Article 5 ECHR is displaced by the applicable regime in Iraq at the time of his arrest, under UN Resolution 1546. The Divisional Court, despite finding that this was a "startling proposition", found in the Government's favour, as did the Court of Appeal in March of this year.

R (Al Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence - House of Lords Hearing, October 2007 Article 103 of the UN Charter provides that the obligations of Member States shall prevail over their obligations under any other international agreement. Resolution 1546 was made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which authorises States to take such action as is necessary to secure international peace and security. Amongst other things, it authorises “internment where necessary for imperative reasons of security in Iraq”. The military considers Mr Al Jedda a threat and claims that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security. It has given no evidence to support this claim and has no intention to press criminal charges. Moreover, the Government argues, Mr Al Jedda has no right to liberty under Article 5 ECHR because it has an obligation to intern him which overrides all his other conflicting rights. The Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal so far agree.

The effect of this finding is that the UN Security Council, an unelected, unaccountable body sitting in New York can, without Parliamentary scrutiny or debate, override fundamental human rights, and in particular the right to liberty, that have been entrenched in our constitution since before the Magna Carta. Mr Al Jedda is not by any means the only person to become victim of these powers; around 65 Iraqi nationals are held without charge by UK forces in the same facility (some for nearly three years) and it is estimated that US forces are holding around 13,000 Iraq nationals.

Mr Al Jedda’s appeal was heard in the House of Lords in October 2007 and we are currently awaiting judgment. Counsel are Kier Starmer QC, Richard Hermer and Felicity Williams of Doughty Street Chambers and Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers.

R (Al Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence - House of Lords Hearing, October 2007

Internal Links

External Links