Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

R (Al Rawi and others) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

368 words (1 pages) Case Summary

27th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

R (Al Rawi and others) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another [2006] EWCA Civ 1279

Discrimination; nationality; Guantanamo; human rights

(313 words)

Facts

The first three claimants were imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Having been previously resident in the UK, they held indefinite leaves to remain, although none were British nationals. The rest of the claimants were members of the first three’s families. The Secretary of State declined to request the release and return of the first three claimants.

Issues

The claimants sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision, arguing that she unlawfully discriminated against them on the basis of their lack of British nationality and breached their legitimate expectations. They relied on ss. 1(1)(a) and 19B(1) of the Race Relations act 1976 s well as certain rights scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998. Referring to the Refugee Convention, they also claimed that the Secretary of State could have made state-to-state claims in respect of non-nationals as well.

Decision/Outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s case. The Secretary of State did not commit direct racial discrimination contrary to the 1976 Act as her decision was not based on race. As a matter of international law, the UK could not protect non-nationals by way of a state-to-state claim – i.e. the claimants’ situation was materially different from that of those entitled to such protection. Secondly, although the case did engage some rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998, for the same reasons as the 1976 Act, they were not violated. In any case, the interference with the claimants’ rights was the consequence of the actions of another state (the USA) and not the UK – so the UK could not be held responsible. Finally, the conduct of foreign relations was not (normally) justiciable and, as a result, it is not for a court to order the Secretary of State to alter her decision as to how she would negotiate with the USA upon such delicate issue like the release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles