Terrorist Asset-Freezing Orders Were Not Within Government Powers
Type
E-journal
Date
3 Feb 2010
Jurisdiction
Egypt, UK, USA
Taxonomy
Offences against the State & the General Public, Sentencing Powers & General Principles of Sentencing, Statehood & Governments, International Institutions & Organisations, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Jurisdiction & Choice of Law
Copyright
LexisNexis
Legal reference
United Nations Act 1946
Cases reference
Ahmed and others v HM Treasury (JUSTICE intervening); sub nom A and others v HM Treasury [2010] UKSC 2, [2010] All ER (D) 179 (Jan)
Associated digest links
Anti-Money Laundering Practice Note Is Highly Approved LNB News 26/11/2009 45
Analysis
The UK's Supreme Court has ruled in Ahmed v HMT the government's attempt to impose asset-freezing orders on five suspected terrorists without Parliament's approval was illegal. Neil Hodge talks to Paul Morris, partner in the dispute resolution team at law firm Denton Wilde Sapte
The seven Supreme Court justices in Ahmed v HMT described the sweeping financial powers contained in two asset-freezing orders as ‘paralysing', ‘draconian' and leaving those involved as ‘effectively prisoners of the state'. They said the government had exceeded its powers.
The Treasury said it would introduce ‘fast-track' legislation to prevent disruption to its powers to freeze terror suspects' assets. The Supreme Court is expected to delay quashing the orders to give ministers time to get parliamentary approval for emergency orders, so denying the men access to their funds.