DOCSLIB.ORG

Her Majesty's Treasury (Respondent) V Mohammed Jabar Ahmed And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Her Majesty's Treasury (Respondent) V Mohammed Jabar Ahmed And Hilary Term [2010] UKSC 2 On appeal from: [2008] EWCA Civ 1187 JUDGMENT Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) v Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and others (FC) (Appellants) Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) v Mohammed al-Ghabra (FC) (Appellant) R (on the application of Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef) (Respondent) v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Appellant) before Lord Phillips, President Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Rodger Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Brown Lord Mance JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 27 January 2010 Heard on 5, 6, 7 and 8 October 2009 Appellants A, K and M Respondent Tim Owen QC Jonathan Swift Dan Squires Sir Michael Wood Andrew O’Connor (Instructed by Birnberg (Instructed by Treasury Peirce and Partners) Solicitor) Appellant G Respondent HAY Rabinder Singh QC Raza Husain Richard Hermer QC Dan Squires Alex Bailin (Instructed by Tuckers) (Instructed by Birnberg Peirce and Partners) Intervener (JUSTICE) Michael Fordham QC Shaheed Fatima Iain Steele (Instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) LORD HOPE, with whom Lord Walker and Lady Hale agree 1. On 13 December 2006 the appellant Mohammed al-Ghabra, referred to in these proceedings as “G”, was informed that a direction had been made against him by HM Treasury (“the Treasury”) under article 4 of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (SI 2006/2657) (“the TO”) and that he was a designated person for the purposes of that Order. He was told that the direction had been made because the Treasury had reasonable grounds for suspecting that he was, or might be, a person who facilitated the commission of acts of terrorism. He was also told that, in light of the sensitive nature of the information on which the decision had been taken, it was not possible to give him further details and that the effect of the direction was to prohibit him from dealing with his funds and economic resources and to prevent anyone notified of the freeze from making funds, economic resources or financial services available to him or for his benefit. On 2 August 2007 the appellants Mohammed Jabar Ahmed, Mohammed Azmir Khan and Michael Marteen (formerly known as Mohammed Tunveer Ahmed), referred to in these proceedings as “A”, “K” and “M”, received letters in almost identical terms telling them that a direction had been made against them under article 4 of the TO by the Treasury. 2. A few days after G had been told that he had been designated under the TO he received a letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office saying the Sanctions Committee of the Security Council of the United Nations (otherwise known as “the 1267 Committee”: see para 18 below) had added his name to its Consolidated List, that this meant that he was subject to a freezing of his funds, assets and economic resources and that these measures were binding on all UN member states with immediate effect and had been implemented in UK law. No mention was made at that stage of the domestic measure under which the restrictions were being imposed on him. But in March 2007 he was told that his listing meant that he was deemed to be a designated person under the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (SI 2006/2952) (“the AQO”). 3. In September 2005 Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef (or Hani al-Seba’i), referred to in these proceedings as “HAY”, was told that his name had been added to the Consolidated List by the 1267 Committee. As a result he too was deemed to be a designated person under the AQO. His interest in these proceedings is virtually identical to those of G and A, K and M. So, although his case comes before this court on an appeal by the Treasury to which he is the respondent (see paras 35-37, below), I shall refer to him and to G and A, K and M as “the appellants” when I need to refer to all these designated persons collectively. 4. The TO and the AQO were made by the Treasury in purported exercise of the power to make Orders in Council which was conferred on them by section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 (“the 1946 Act”). In each case the Orders were made to give effect to resolutions of the United Nations Security Council which were designed to suppress and prevent the financing and preparation of acts of terrorism. The Orders provide for the freezing, without limit of time, of the funds, economic resources and Page 2 financial services available to, among others, persons who have been designated. Their freedom of movement is not, in terms, restricted. But the effect of the Orders is to deprive the designated persons of any resources whatsoever. So in practice they have this effect. Persons who have been designated, as Sedley LJ observed in the Court of Appeal, are effectively prisoners of the state: A and others v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187; [2009] 3 WLR 25, para 125. Moreover the way the system is administered affects not just those who have been designated. It affects third parties too, including the spouses and other family members of those who have been designated. For them too it is intrusive to a high degree: see R(M) v HM Treasury (Note) [2008] UKHL 26, [2008] 2 All ER 1097. In that case, which concerned the payment of social security benefits to the spouses of listed persons living in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 to which the Al-Qa’ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 (SI 2002/111) gave effect. 5. The procedure that section 1 lays down enables Orders under it to be made by the executive without any kind of Parliamentary scrutiny. This is in sharp contrast to the scheme for the freezing of assets that has been enacted by Parliament in Part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Orders made under that Act must be kept under review by the Treasury, are time limited and must be approved by both Houses of Parliament: sections 7, 8 and 10. The systems that have been provided for in the TO and the AQO are far more draconian. Yet they lie wholly outside the scope of Parliamentary scrutiny. This raises fundamental questions about the relationship between Parliament and the executive and about judicial control over the power of the executive. 6. The case brings us face to face with the kind of issue that led to Lord Atkin’s famously powerful protest in Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206, 244 against a construction of a Defence Regulation which had the effect of giving an absolute and uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the minister. In The Case of Liversidge v Anderson : The Rule of Law Amid the Clash of Arms (2009) 43 The International Lawyer 33, 38 Lord Bingham of Cornhill, having traced the history of that judgment, said that – “we are entitled to be proud that even in that extreme national emergency there was one voice – eloquent and courageous – which asserted older, nobler, more enduring values: the right of the individual against the state; the duty to govern in accordance with law; the role of the courts as guarantor of legality and individual right; the priceless gift, subject only to constraints by law established, of individual freedom.” The consequences of the Orders that were made in this case are so drastic and so oppressive that we must be just as alert to see that the coercive action that the Treasury have taken really is within the powers that the 1946 Act has given them. Page 3 Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law. We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty. The legislative background: the history 7. To set the scene for the discussion that follows, it is necessary to trace the history of the various measures that have led to the appellants being dealt with in this way. 8. An examination of the legislative background must begin with the Charter of the United Nations. It was signed in San Francisco on 26 June 1945 as the Second World War was coming to an end. It came into force on 24 October 1945. The Preamble records the determination of the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. Member states bound themselves to maintain international peace and security, to take collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms: article 1. 9. No principled objections were raised against a strong Security Council. In order to achieve the goal of maintaining peace states were willing to submit to a central organ in a manner that hitherto had been unprecedented: The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, ed Bruno Simma, 2nd ed (2002), p 703. Article 2 of the Charter states: “The Organisation and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. … 2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.” Article 24 confers the primary responsibility on the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Tribunal) (Former Yugoslavia) (Amendment) Order 2001
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2001 No. 2563 UNITED NATIONS The United Nations (International Tribunal) (Former Yugoslavia) (Amendment) Order 2001 Made ------- 18th July 2001 Laid before Parliament - - - 19th July 2001 Laid before the Scottish Parliament 19th July 2001 Coming into force ----- 1stSeptember 2001 At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 18th day of July 2001 Present, The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council Whereas under article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations the Security Council of the United Nations, by a resolution adopted on 25th May 1993, called upon Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and all other States to apply certain measures to give effect to a decision of that Council in relation to the Former Yugoslavia: And whereas, under section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946(a) (“the 1946 Act”) Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provision as appears to her necessary or expedient for enabling those measures to be effectively applied: And whereas, on 13th March 1996, Her Majesty made the United Nations (International Tribunal) (Former Yugoslavia) Order 1996(b) (“the 1996 Order”), which was laid before Parliament on 14th March 1996 and came into force on 15th March 1996: And whereas, under section 1(3) of the 1946 Act, any Order in Council made under section 1 of the 1946 Act may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council: Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred upon Her by section 1 of the 1946 Act, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:— Citation, commencement and extent 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the United Nations (International Tribunal) (Former Yugoslavia) (Amendment) Order 2001 and shall come into force on 1st September 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Legality of the Use of Force Against Iraq International Law and the War with Iraq
    FEATURE — LEGALITY OF THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WAR WITH IRAQ International Law and the War with Iraq ALEX J BELLAMY* [The United States-led invasion of Iraq prompted a widespread debate about the legitimacy and legality of the use of force without explicit United Nations authorisation. Some argued that the invasion enjoyed the implied authorisation of the Security Council, suggesting that Resolution 678, a remnant of the first Gulf War, continued to authorise the use of force to ensure Iraqi compliance with the Gulf War cease-fire. The US government further argued that Iraq posed an imminent threat to its neighbours, to the US and to international peace and security. On this basis, the US asserted a right to pre-emptive self-defence. This article evaluates these legal claims in depth. It exploring the background to the war, and asks whether or not the Security Council did implicitly authorise the war. Having assessed the statements of Security Council members, it suggests that the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War were not intended to authorise subsequent uses of force. Nor, it is argued, did Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, provide implicit authorisation for the use of force. Given the substance of the reports of Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and the subsequent failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the self-defence argument is also untenable. Indeed, to accept either of the legal justifications proposed
    [Show full text]
  • (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2001 No. 3366 UNITED NATIONS The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001 Made ----- 9thOctober 2001 Laid before Parliament 9th October 2001 Coming into force - - 10th October 2001 At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 9th day of October 2001 Present, The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council Whereas under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations the Security Council of the United Nations has, by a resolution adopted on 28th September 2001, called upon Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and all other States to apply certain measures to give effect to decisions of that Council in relation to combating terrorist activities: Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred on Her by section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946(a), is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: Citation, commencement, operation, extent and amendment 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001 and shall come into force on 10th October 2001. (2) If the Security Council of the United Nations takes any decision which has the effect of cancelling or postponing or suspending the operation of the resolution adopted by it on 28th September 2001, in whole or in part, this Order shall cease to have effect or its operation shall be postponed or suspended, in whole or in part, as the case may be, in accordance with that decision. (3) Particulars of the decisions referred to in paragraph (2) above shall be published by the Governor in a notice in the official gazette of the Territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003
    DISCLAIMER: As Member States provide national legislations, hyperlinks and explanatory notes (if any), UNESCO does not guarantee their accuracy, nor their up-dating on this web site, and is not liable for any incorrect information. COPYRIGHT: All rights reserved.This information may be used only for research, educational, legal and non- commercial purposes, with acknowledgement of UNESCO Cultural Heritage Laws Database as the source (© UNESCO). 2003 No 1519 Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003 UNITED NATIONS Made 12th June 2003 Laid before Parliament 13th June 2003 Coming into force 14th June 2003 At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 12th day of June 2003 Present, The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council Whereas under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations the Security Council of the United Nations has, by a resolution adopted on 22nd May 2003, called upon Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and all other States to apply certain measures to give effect to decisions of that Council in relation to Iraq: Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred on Her by section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: Citation, commencement, operation and extent 1—(1) This Order may be cited as the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003 and shall come into force on 14th June 2003. (2) If the Security Council of the United Nations takes any decision which has the effect of cancelling or suspending the operation of the resolution adopted by it on 22nd May 2003, in whole or in part, this Order shall cease to have effect or its operation shall be suspended, in whole or in part, as the case may be, in accordance with that decision; and particulars of that decision shall be published by the Secretary of State in a notice in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BRITISH INSTITUTE of INTERNATIONAL and COMPARATIVE LAW Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP
    THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP Tel: (+44)(0)20 7862 5151 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (+44)(0)20 7862 5152 No. 2 www.biicl.org APRIL 2004 NEWSLETTER Development Appeal: £2 million target reached in donations and pledges Due to the hard work of the Development Appeal Committee, chaired by Lord Goff of Chieveley, the generosity of individuals and trusts and the willingness of companies and firms to become more actively involved in the Institute on an ongoing basis, we are pleased to announce that our initial target of raising £2 million has been achieved. Through the activities of the Appeal we have been able to establish a number of new activities. Last year saw the launch of both the Competition Law Forum and the Data Protection Research and Policy Group, and the establishment of the Company Law Centre. The Dorset Fellow in Public International Law is funded for five years. Our successes have encouraged us that there is strong support for the Institute both within the profession and beyond. It is evident that there is much that the Institute could achieve, given the funds and opportunity to do so. It is to this end that the Institute has established a Development Board to continue to look at ways in which the Institute can increase its activity and develop its role as the leading institute for international and comparative law. The Development Appeal and Development Board aim is to increase the funding of ongoing activities of the Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Runnymede Trust Conference: What Magna Carta and the Race
    RUNNYMEDE TRUST CONFERENCE WHAT MAGNA CARTA AND THE RACE RELATIONS ACT MEAN TO US TODAY SIR RABINDER SINGH 29 JULY 2015 1. I am honoured to have been invited to address you today. The Runnymede Trust is the leading organisation in this country dedicated to the promotion of racial equality. When it was founded in 1968 by Jim Rose and Anthony Lester it took its name from the meadow by the Thames where the first Magna Carta was sealed in 1215. I am particularly pleased that, among the understandable and widespread commemorations of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the opportunity has not been lost also to remember that this is the 50th Anniversary of the first Race Relations Act in this country. 2. At first sight it is not obvious that there is any link between the two. It is well- known that Magna Carta was sealed as part of a power struggle between King John and the Barons. They would hardly have been interested in creating an equal society. Furthermore, many of the references in Magna Carta itself are based on distinctions between people depending on their status: the reference to “all free men” clearly excluded those who were villeins. The institution of 1 serfdom was very much alive at that time. And there were provisions in the 1215 version of Magna Carta which on their face discriminated against Jews. 3. Lord Sumption, who is not only a Justice of the Supreme Court but a distinguished historian, has described the sentiments which often surround Magna Carta as “high minded tosh.”1 Although it is undoubtedly correct to question whether many of the modern readings of Magna Carta have any basis in historical fact, it is also important to recall that the mythology surrounding such documents can itself have continuing impact on a society.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Letter Law 2006
    Black Letter Law The presence of black and ethnic minorities in the legal profession A CRE/BLD publication for Black History Month Introductions Contents The idea to do this booklet came from Debo Nwauzu, Director of the Black Legal history 11 Rabinder Singh QC Lawyers Directory (BLD). The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) 2 Ganendra Mohan Tagore 11 District Judge Ray Singh agreed to undertake this project thinking that it would be fairly simple to 2 Alexander Kennedy 12 Keith Vaz MP get the information from the Law Society and the Bar Council and put it all 2 Thomas Morris Chester 12 Thelma Stober together. But this has not been very easy. We approached the Law Society 3 Aviet Agabeg 13 Shami Chakrabarti and the Bar Council for their assistance in researching their records - they 3 Christian Frederick Cole 14 Courtenay Griffiths QC have been very helpful in making extensive enquiries - however, neither 3 Mahatma Ghandi 14 Anesta Weekes QC organisation had much information that was relevant. 4 Muhammad Jinnah 15 Sadiq Khan MP This lack of information is significant and reflects that until fairly 4 Jawaharlal Nehru 16 District Judge Shamim recently these organisations did not collect monitoring data on their 5 Cornelia Sorabji Qureshi members. This problem also illustrates how important it is to undertake 16 David Lammy MP monitoring. Legal history in the making 17 Icah Peart QC This is a work in progress. We hope to build on this publication in future 6 Nelson Mandela 17 Trevor Faure years so that there is a more detailed chronicle of black and minority ethnic 6 Dr John Roberts QC 17 Gifty Edila (BME) individuals in the legal profession who are or were in the vanguard 7 Baroness Patricia Scotland 18 Chris Boothman of the struggle to make the profession more diverse and representative.
    [Show full text]
  • GENEXAL S/7781. 1967 ENGLISH ORIGIFAL
    Disk?, GENEXAL s/7781. 21 February 1967 ENGLISH ORIGIFAL: ENGLISH/FREBCH, SPANISH REPORT BY THE SECRETARY-GENERALIIS PURSUANCEOF RESOLUTION 232 (1966) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 13lCOTH MEETING Ol!T 16 DECEMBER1966 I 1. On 16 December 1966, the Security Council, acting in accordance with Articles 39 and 4-l of the United Nations Charter, determined that the present situation in Southern Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international peace and security, It called on States to take a number of measures which were laid down in operative paragraphs 2 and 5 of resolution 232 (1966), which read as follows: "2. _Decides that all States Members of the United Nations shall prevent: "(a) the import into their territories of asbestos, iron ore, chrome pig-iron, sugar, tobacco, copper, meat and meat products and hides, skins and leather originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the date of this resolution; "(b) any activities by their nationals or in their territories which promote or are calculated to promote the export of these commodities from Southern Rhodesia and any dealings by their nationals or in their territories in any of these commodities originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the date of this resolution, including in particular any transfer of funds to Southern Rhodesia for the purposes of such activities ox dealings; "(c) shipment in vessels or aircraft of their registration of any of these commodities originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the date of this
    [Show full text]
  • 1 ETHEL BENJAMIN COMMEMORATIVE ADDRESS 2010 DIGNITY Rt Hon Baroness Hale of Richmond Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
    ETHEL BENJAMIN COMMEMORATIVE ADDRESS 2010 DIGNITY Rt Hon Baroness Hale of Richmond Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom It is a great delight to be back in New Zealand. I have fond memories of our first trip here in 1993, the centenary of your pioneering decision to give women the vote. I picked up a facsimile copy of a small poster from 1893 headed “Notice to Epicene Women”. It advised electioneering women that they were not wanted at that address and should get back to looking after their homes and their husbands. When I joined the Court of Appeal in England I put it up on the door of my chambers – mainly as a joke, but also to catch people’s eyes, and make them wonder where and when such sentiments could have been uttered. Hopefully, although I was the only woman on the court then, my colleagues would recognise that such things could never be said today. But I miscalculated. One day the poster disappeared. A colleague had taken it down. He was not so sure who had put it there or whether it was a joke. So it is even more of a delight to be back here celebrating the memory of Ethel Benjamin. If New Zealand deserves great credit for giving women the vote, long before anyone else in the English speaking world, it deserves at least as much credit for giving women the right to practise law, if not so far ahead of the rest of the English speaking world, then at least long before “the mother country” and with much less fuss and bother than anywhere else.
    [Show full text]
  • British Iraq War Legality
    Regina (Gentle and Another) v. Prime Minister and Others Appeal to the United Kingdom House of Lords [Legality of Iraq War Case] 2008 U.K.H.L. Rep. 20, 2 World Law Rep. 879, 2008 WestLaw 833633 (April 9, 2008) Author’s Note: This suit did not seek money damages. The plaintiffs are parents of soldiers who were killed in the Iraq War. They alleged that the Article 2 “Right to Life” provision of the European Convention on Human Rights was an appropriate basis for a judicial assessment of the legality of the Iraq War. Per the House of Lords (final possible appeal venue) practice, each of the selected judges provides his/her views on the issue presented. Portions of overlapping analyses have been deleted. Bracketed inserts have been added at the beginning of each opinion, as a signpost for the gist of each opinion. The paragraph numbers are those of the House of Lords. The original British spelling has been retained. The term “[E.C.H.R.]” refers to European Convention on Human Rights. Court’s Opinion: APPEAL from the Court of Appeal . LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL [facts and legal provisions] 1 My Lords. The claimants are the mothers of two young men, both aged 19, who lost their lives while serving in the British army in Iraq. Fusilier Gordon Campbell Gentle … was killed by a roadside bomb on 28 June 2004. Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke … was killed by “friendly fire” on 25 March 2003. These deaths have been fully investigated at duly-constituted inquests conducted in the United Kingdom, and there are no outstanding questions about when, where and in what circumstances they respectively died.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 December 2020
    Our ref: 70-40747050 Direct Dial: +44 207006 4979 E-mail: [email protected] LCH Limited Aldgate House 33 Aldgate High Street London EC3N 1EA 1 December 2020 Dear Sirs Opinion letter in respect of the LCH Limited EMIR-compliant model You have asked us to provide advice in respect of the laws of England and Wales ("this jurisdiction") in response to certain specific questions raised by LCH Limited ("LCH") in relation to membership, insolvency, security, set-off & netting and client clearing for purposes including the application of LCH for "Recognised Central Counterparty" status, pursuant to Article 17 of EMIR(UK) (as defined below) and Section 288 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA"). The relevant questions are set out in full in Section 3 of this opinion letter (the ''Opinion Letter'') together with the corresponding responses. 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.1 This opinion is given in respect of Clearing Members which (as further specified in paragraph 2.14) are: 1.1.1 banks incorporated in this jurisdiction which have permission to accept deposits by virtue of Part 4A of FSMA but not including insurance companies which have such permission to carry out contracts of insurance. (Please note that certain other types of person, not covered by this opinion, may also have permission to accept deposits, including credit unions within the meaning of section 31 of the Credit Unions Act 1979); 1.1.2 banks incorporated in another jurisdiction but with a branch in this jurisdiction; 1.1.3 investment firms incorporated in this jurisdiction or incorporated in another jurisdiction but with a branch in this jurisdiction, and 1.1.4 Building Societies as defined in Annex 1 and subject to the modifications set out in Annex 1; which, in each case, are either English companies, foreign companies or Royal Charter Corporations.
    [Show full text]
  • 314422 Hl Journal Indexonly
    3103631001 14-02-06 09:39:00 Table: LJOIND PPSysB Unit: PAG1 2004–05 413 GENERAL INDEX See also Judicial Index and Membership of the House, below Abbreviations: Finding aids: 1a;2a;3a First, second, third readings AFFIRMATIVE INSTRUMENTS CWH Committee of the Whole House AMENDMENTS TO MOTIONS DPRRC Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform COMMITTEES Committee DIVISIONS GC Grand Committee GRAND COMMITTEE HC House of Commons MOTIONS (including motions to HL House of Lords annul (“Prayers”)) HM Her Majesty “PING-PONG” JCCB Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills PRE-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY JCHRJoint Committee on Human Rights PRIVATE BILLS JCSI Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments PUBLIC BILLS RA Royal Assent SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS SO Standing Order UNSTARRED QUESTIONS UBC Unopposed Bill Committee Quick finder: Constitutional Reform Bill [HL] carried over: 24 Nov 04, 8-9 Extended uses of Grand Committee: see Grand Committee Resolution time-limiting Unstarred Questions in Grand Committee: 31 Jan 05, 143 Debate on committee report in Grand Committee time-limited: 21 Feb 05, 197 All-night sitting on Prevention of Terrorism Bill: 10 Mar 05, 287 11 Mar treated as separate sitting for Lords expenses: 24 Mar 05, 364 A27: Adoption and Children Act 2002: Unstarred question, 25 Jan, 131. Papers (per Act): 2 Mar, 238; 4 Apr, 371; 7 Apr, 395. Access to Justice Act 1999: dults with ncapacity cotland Papers (per Act): 2 Feb, 150; 10 Mar, 285; 4 A I (S ) Apr, 373; 5 Apr, 379. Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications)(England,Wales Access to Justice (Northern and Northern Ireland)Order Ireland)Order 2003: 2005: Papers (per Order): 21 Mar, 341.
    [Show full text]