{"title":"驱逐有酷刑“真正风险”的恐怖分子嫌疑人:上议院在阿布卡塔达的决定","authors":"M. Garrod","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note discusses the House of Lords' decision in RB (Algeria) (FC) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department that the real risk of third-party foreign torture evidence does not meet the required standard of unfairness so as to prevent the deportation of suspected terrorists under Article 6 ECHR. It considers three key issues that were raised by this case: Parliament has deliberately restricted the right of appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal on questions of fact; the procedure of using closed material by SIAC in the assessment of safety on return is unequivocally permitted by statute; and the conclusions by SIAC that diplomatic assurances contained in Memoranda of Understanding do not give rise to points of law and, therefore, are beyond review by the appellate courts.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"642 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deportation of Suspected Terrorists with ‘Real Risk’ of Torture: The House of Lords Decision in Abu Qatada\",\"authors\":\"M. Garrod\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This note discusses the House of Lords' decision in RB (Algeria) (FC) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department that the real risk of third-party foreign torture evidence does not meet the required standard of unfairness so as to prevent the deportation of suspected terrorists under Article 6 ECHR. It considers three key issues that were raised by this case: Parliament has deliberately restricted the right of appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal on questions of fact; the procedure of using closed material by SIAC in the assessment of safety on return is unequivocally permitted by statute; and the conclusions by SIAC that diplomatic assurances contained in Memoranda of Understanding do not give rise to points of law and, therefore, are beyond review by the appellate courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":426546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":\"642 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00811.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Deportation of Suspected Terrorists with ‘Real Risk’ of Torture: The House of Lords Decision in Abu Qatada
This note discusses the House of Lords' decision in RB (Algeria) (FC) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department that the real risk of third-party foreign torture evidence does not meet the required standard of unfairness so as to prevent the deportation of suspected terrorists under Article 6 ECHR. It considers three key issues that were raised by this case: Parliament has deliberately restricted the right of appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal on questions of fact; the procedure of using closed material by SIAC in the assessment of safety on return is unequivocally permitted by statute; and the conclusions by SIAC that diplomatic assurances contained in Memoranda of Understanding do not give rise to points of law and, therefore, are beyond review by the appellate courts.