by René Lavanchy
THE Court of Appeal has ordered words to be struck out from a Government law freezing the assets of suspected terrorists, which they said was “alarmingly wide” and could have human rights implications. But they have refused to rule the regulations – passed without Parliamentary scrutiny – unlawful.
The judgment last week means that several men who were suddenly informed they were terrorism suspects cannot earn money or spend their own cash without permission, under pain of imprisonment. The men, who have not been named, have no access to legal help because of the secret nature of the information used against them.
But the court ordered that a line that said the spending freeze could apply to people who “may be” suspected of terrorism had to be changed, as it could apply to almost anyone.
Lord Justice Sedley warned that the Government should not be over-zealous: “It is not right to expect people to run the risk of prosecution… in order to ascertain whether a gift of food or a loan of a few pounds to a controlled person has infringed the order”. The rule, he said, “ranges alarmingly wide”.
The High Court ruled earlier this year that the Treasury’s Terrorism Order and its al-Qaida and Taliban Order – created to comply with a United Nations directive on freezing terrorists’ assets – were wrongful, a decision which the appeal court has now overturned. The laws are orders in council, which do not need a vote in Parliament.
