0
The investigatory Powers Tribunal has handed down an important judgment on jurisdiction under Article 1 ECHR. Al-Nashiri v. Security Service and others [2023] UKIPTrib 6 involves a claim by Mr Al-Nashiri, currently a detainee of the US authorities at Guantanamo Bay. He claims that the UK Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and Ministry of Defence were complicit in his alleged mistreatment and rendition by the US authorities. Mr Al-Nashiri already has two judgments from the European Court of Human Rights relating to his alleged detention and mis-treatment at CIA-run black sites in Poland and Romania: see Al-Nashiri v. Poland (2015) 60 EHRR 16 and Al-Nashiri v Romania (2019) 68 EHRR 3, in which the Court found, in respect of each state, breaches of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 and Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol. The hearing before the IPT proceeded on the basis of assumed facts but it was no part of his case that he had ever been on the territory of the UK. Accordingly, the question arose whether one of the exceptions relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction under the Convention applied. The IPT carried out a review of the case-law of the Strasbourg Court on extraterritorial jurisdiction and held that there was no basis on which to find that extraterritorial jurisdiction was established on the assumed facts of Mr Al-Nashiri’s case.
David Blundell KC represented the respondent UK intelligence agencies.
Samantha Broadfoot KC appeared as Counsel to the Tribunal.
The judgment can be found here.
Press coverage can be found here.
