Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court (Consequential Matters)
[2024] EWHC 111 (Admin)
Amanat Ullah, R (on the application of) v National Crime Agency
22 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 371 (Admin)
High Court
A man won a big settlement against the UK government but the government blocked the payment because they think he's a terrorist. He tried to get help paying legal fees but the judge said no, because the government would eventually make a fair decision about who pays the legal bills.
Key Facts
- •Amanat Ullah, captured in Iraq in 2004 and held in Afghanistan until 2014, alleges torture and mistreatment by British and US forces.
- •He received a substantial settlement in a civil claim against the UK government in 2019.
- •The National Crime Agency (NCA) refused consent under the Terrorism Act 2000 to transfer the settlement funds due to Ullah's alleged association with a terrorist group.
- •Ullah challenges the NCA's refusal via judicial review, involving closed material proceedings (CMP).
- •Ullah applied for a protective costs order (PCO) under Begg v HM Treasury principles due to the CMP and his impecunious circumstances.
Legal Principles
Consent under s. 21ZA of the Terrorism Act 2000 immunises from liability for offences relating to terrorist transactions.
Terrorism Act 2000
Jurisdiction to grant PCOs exists in cases where a CMP creates an unfair inequality of arms, as recognised in Begg v HM Treasury.
Begg v HM Treasury [2015] EWHC 1851 (Admin), [2016] EWCA Civ 568
Sections 88-90 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 provide a codified regime for PCOs in judicial review, potentially excluding Begg-type orders.
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Article 6 ECHR guarantees the right to a fair hearing, encompassing equality of arms.
Article 6 ECHR
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review granted on all grounds.
The case raised issues of importance.
Application for a protective costs order (PCO) refused.
Sections 88-90 of the 2015 Act constitute a complete code for PCOs in judicial review, and the claimant did not meet the requirements for a Begg-type order. While a CMP creates inequality of arms, this can be addressed in the final costs assessment and the claimant has access to substantial funds.
Declaration of incompatibility under s.4 of the Human Rights Act 1988 not made.
The court found that the proceedings were not incompatible with Article 6 ECHR because of the holistic assessment of the proceedings and the availability of funds to cover potential costs.
Similar Cases
Dr Imad Nassani & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2023] EWHC 2853 (Admin)
CVN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
[2023] EWHC 865 (Admin)
ASY & Ors v Home Office
[2024] EWCA Civ 373
YMB & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
[2024] EWHC 1950 (Admin)