European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

FIRST SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF SABURE MALIK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

 

(Application no. 32968/11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

(Striking out)

 

STRASBOURG

 

30 June 2016

 

 

 

 

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

 




In the case of Sabure Malik v. the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

          Ledi Bianku, President,
          Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
          Paul Mahoney,
          Aleš Pejchal,
          Robert Spano,
          Armen Harutyunyan,
          Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 June 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 32968/11) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Mr Sabure Malik (“the applicant”), on 18 May 2011.

2.  The applicant was represented by Ms C. Ferguson and Ms R. Brighouse, lawyers practising in London with Liberty. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. McKell, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

3.  The applicant complained that the use of powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 in his case violated his rights under Articles 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.

4.  By a decision of 28 May 2013 the Court declared the application admissible.

5.  The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). In addition, third-party comments were received from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2). The parties replied to those comments (Rule 44 § 5).

6.  On 8 April 2014, upon the request of the Government, the Court decided to adjourn its examination of the case until the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom had given judgment in the case of Beghal v. the Director of Public Prosecutions, which raised similar issues. When the Supreme Court gave its judgment in Beghal (on 22 July 2015: [2015] UKSC 49), the Court resumed its examination of the present case and sought further observations from the parties on Beghal. The parties submitted those further observations on 12 November 2015.

THE FACTS

7.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Benfleet.

8.  On 23 November 2010 the applicant arrived back in the United Kingdom at London Heathrow Airport on a flight from Jeddah via Bahrain. He had been undertaking the Hajj in Saudi Arabia. At immigration control he was detained under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. After questioning, a search of his personal belongings and the taking of DNA samples and fingerprints, he was released. The detention lasted from approximately 3 p.m. to 7.20 p.m.

9.  A review undertaken at the request of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation concluded on 7 January 2011 that, in stopping and questioning the applicant and in taking DNA samples and fingerprints, the officers at the airport had acted appropriately within the terms of the legislation. There were no further domestic proceedings in the case.

THE LAW

10.  On 24 February 2016, the applicant informed the Court that he no longer wished to pursue his application. On 22 March 2016, the Government informed the Court that, since the applicant wished to withdraw his application, they considered it appropriate for the Court to strike the application out of the list.

11.  In light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

12.  Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Decides to strike the case out of the list.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 June 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

    Abel Campos                                                                Ledi Bianku
       Registrar                                                                      President