Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Freeze on suspects' assets 'illegal'

Robert Verkaik
Thursday 28 January 2010 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Gordon Brown's personal contribution to the "war on terror" when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer was a fundamental breach of the Human Rights Act, the country's highest court has said.

Judges at the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the Treasury had exceeded its powers when it brought in measures to freeze the assets of people suspected of having links to terrorism.

The court said the Government was wrong to bypass parliamentary scrutiny when it brought in new rules to block suspects' access to finances. Five men, who were not told why they had been targeted by the orders, are allowed access to just £10 a week in cash and need special permission for other expenses.

The Supreme Court justices said that the issue in the appeals was whether Parliament intended to give the Treasury power to make orders that "interfere so profoundly with individuals' fundamental rights without parliamentary scrutiny". They concluded that Parliament "did not so intend" and the Treasury had exceeded its powers.

The men had argued that the asset-freezing regime severely affected their ability to use property and cash from any source and left their families open to criminal prosecution if they offered help.

In one situation, a minister had to be consulted over whether a suspect could use a car to buy the family groceries from a supermarket, because the vehicle was classed as a financial resource.

A spokesman for the Treasury said it would abide by the ruling and legislate as quickly as possible to make the orders compatible with human rights laws.

"It's important to be clear that this ruling does not challenge the UK's obligations under the UN Charter to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists, which we will continue to meet," the spokesman said.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in