CC & CF v Secretary of State for the Home Office

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of two persons who were subjected to control orders and TPIM measures under terrorism powers. The first, Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed (CC), who absconded from his TPIM in November, and a second known only as CF.

Mr Mohamed and CF had contended that the imposition of the terrorism measures on them had been an abuse of process as British officials had been complicit in what they claim to have been unlawful detention, mistreatment and unlawful return to the United Kingdom from Somaliland in January 2011. The Court of Appeal held that the first instance judge had been wrong in refusing to provide any reasons for rejecting this complaint or to set out the Government's response to it. The allegations were said to be "very serious and raise important legal issues". Maurice Kay LJ (with Whom Sullivan and Briggs LJJ agreed) held that the trial Judge "ought not to have countenanced such a radical departure from procedural and constitutional normality". He also said that "It is not simply a matter of a government party to litigation hoisting the NCND flag and the court automatically saluting it".

The Court also held that the Secretary of State had failed to comply with the requirements of full and frank disclosure to the judge who had approved the control order and quashed the control orders on this basis.

The Court of Appeal also considered whether the requirements of AF (No 3) disclosure of the case against a person were satisfied in CF's case and held that had been. 

The abuse of process issue was remitted to the Administrative Court for reconsideration.

The full judgment can be read here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/559.html

Tim Otty QC represented Mr Mohamed
Tom Hickman represented CF
James Eadie QC represented the Secretary of State