Tue, 26 Jun 2007
Why do the Law Lords refused to hear Babar Ahmad's case? I don't
understand.
The Law Lords
decide
that ‘
That leave to appeal be refused’ in
Ahmad (Petitioner) v
Government of the United States of America and another (Respondents)
- The President of the Grand Chamber in the European Court puts
a stay on extradition to give it proper consideration
- SACC's press releases on the Law Lords ruling
and on the European Court decision
- Ahmad & Anor v United States of America [2006]
EWHC 2927 (Admin) (30 November 2006)
As SACC expresses in very strong terms, the decision of the Law Lords
is
surprising. If there was nothing to this case, surely the Europen Court
wouldn't have immediately asked the UK Government for a stay on the
extradition. I asked the House of Lords for more information as to the
reasons for this decision. The reply I received does not give much more
information:
Please be advised the Law Lords refuse leave to appeal on the grounds
that there is no point of law of public importance to hear the appeal
at the House of Lords. Detailed decisions are not provided by the
Appeal Committee and are not published on the website.
v.
The House of Lords Appellate Committee rules that Iraqi detainees are
protected by the Human Rights Act 1998
2007-06-24 FIRST PUBLISHED
2007-06-26 UPDATED with further info from the House of Lords
