Al-Jedda v United Kingdom
The internment of an Iraqi civilian by British forces in Iraq breached article 5, because a UN Security Council resolution did not clearly require the United Kingdom to detain people without charge.
Facts
Mr Al-Jedda, a British and Iraqi national, was detained by British forces in Basra for over three years, on security grounds, without charge. The United Kingdom argued that the detention was authorised by a United Nations Security Council resolution, which authorised the multinational force to take all necessary measures to maintain security in Iraq, and that under article 103 of the UN Charter, obligations under the Charter prevailed over the Convention. The House of Lords had accepted this argument.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held that the detention breached article 5(1). The court held that the detention was attributable to the United Kingdom, not to the United Nations, and that Mr Al-Jedda was within its jurisdiction. In interpreting Security Council resolutions, there is a presumption that the Security Council does not intend to impose any obligation on member states to breach fundamental principles of human rights, and clear and explicit language would be needed to require internment without charge. The resolution did not contain such language, so there was no conflict between the United Kingdom's obligations under the Charter and the Convention.
Related cases on The Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68
- Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 AC 546
- Banković v Belgium (2007) 44 EHRR SE5
- Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21, [2003] 2 AC 467
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557
- Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council [2006] UKHL 10, [2006] 2 AC 465
- Re McKerr [2004] UKHL 12, [2004] 1 WLR 807
- R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2008] 1 AC 153
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
