by B. and Others against the United Kingdom
lodged on 7 June 2005
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, three Algerian nationals, are represented by Bhatt Murphy, a firm of solicitors based in London. The first applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Leicester; the second applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Birmingham; the third applicant was born in 1979 and lives in London.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The general background is set out in A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, 19 February 2009.
1. The first applicant
The first applicant was certified by the Secretary of State as a suspected international terrorist under section 21 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (“the 2001 Act”) and detained on 23 April 2002.
On 28 August 2002 he was charged with fraud offences. He was convicted on 10 July 2003 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He was released on 28 May 2005, subject to a control order.
2. The second applicant
The second applicant was certified by the Secretary of State as a suspected international terrorist under section 21 of the 2001 Act and detained on 19 December 2001.
He was detained until 20 September 2004, when the certificate was revoked on the basis that he no longer constituted a threat to national security. The second applicant was released unconditionally.
3. The third applicant
The third applicant was certified by the Secretary of State as a suspected international terrorist under section 21 of the 2001 Act and detained on 14 January 2003.
At some point in 2003 the third applicant was charged with fraud and on 11 June 2004 he was convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. His criminal sentence expired on 22 January 2005 but he remained in detention, under Part 4 of the 2001 Act, until 10 March 2005, when he was released subject to a control order.
B. Relevant domestic law
See A. and Others, cited above, paragraphs 87-93.
The applicants complain, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, that their detention was unlawful and discriminatory and, under Article 5 § 5, that they had no enforceable domestic right to compensation for the unlawful detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES