Freezing of terror assets backed
The Court of Appeal has ruled the government should be allowed to freeze
the assets of suspected terrorists.
The majority decision overturns an earlier High Court ruling that such
orders were unlawful.
However, the Appeal Court judges did quash freezing orders made against
five unnamed men because they had not been worded correctly.
The case is now expected to be referred to the House of Lords, which is
the highest court in the UK.
The five men were designated terror suspects last year under two Orders
in Council which was set up to apply UN Security Council resolutions in
the UK.
The powers are seen as a key plank of government anti-terror strategy.
They allow the Treasury to stop anyone suspected of "facilitating acts
of terrorism" controlling their assets.
Mr Justice Collins ruled in April at the High Court that Orders in
Council were absurd, unfair and a breach of fundamental rights.
He allowed the case to go to the Court of Appeal where the Master of the
Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, agreed the orders were "oppressive in nature"
and were bound to cause problems to anyone served with one.
But he said the only way in which the government had exceeded what the
Security Council had required was use of the words "or may be" when it
served a freezing order stating.
The judge said the orders were lawful if those words were taken out of
the Terrorism Order.
Because the orders made against the five men, identified only as A, K,
M, Q and G, contained those words, he quashed them.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.
Published: 2008/10/30 19:07:43 GMT
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Posts
