Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Liam Byrne (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

The 1946 Act did not set out any such test; rather, it set out a broad power for the Government to introduce measures, including those for"““the apprehension, trial and punishment of persons offending against the Order.””" That was the legal basis that was tested by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's judgment in taking away the foundation on which the Government had rested was reasonably narrow. The Supreme Court refused to read ““expedient”” as wide enough to cover reasonable suspicion—that is perhaps the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. Rather, it concluded that it would be wrong to give ““expedient”” such an expansive meaning where the result is such an interference with individuals' rights.

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c656 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Assets Crown dependencies Channel Islands Finance Licensing Human rights Legal aid scheme EU law Isle of Man National security Parliamentary scrutiny Terrorism United Nations Supreme Court UN resolutions al Qaeda Taliban Freezing of assets Sunset clauses
Legislation
Terrorist Asset-freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk