Being questioned at the airport under Terrorism Act is against EU civil rights

Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] UKSC 49 (22 July 2015)

The appellant was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 which requires a person in her position to answer questions asked by police officers, immigration officers and customs officers for the purpose there set out. She refused to answer the questions and was subsequently convicted of the offence of wilfully failing to do so, contrary to paragraph 18 of that Schedule. Her appeal against her conviction raises the issue whether Schedule 7 is compatible with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 5 (right to liberty) and 6 (privilege against self-incrimination).


The European Court of Human Rights judged that the Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with articles 5, 6 and 8 of ECHR.

Imprisonment during the last 10 years in the UK does not necessarily preclude your right to permanent resident

MG (prison-Article 28(3) (a) of Citizens Directive) [2014] UKUT 392 (IAC) (12 August 2014)

Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that a period of imprisonment can interrupt the continuity of the period of residence. This imprisonment can affect the decision regarding the grant of the enhanced protection provided even where the person concerned resided in the host Member State for the 10 years prior to imprisonment.

However, the fact that the client resided in the host Member State for the 10 years prior to imprisonment may be taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment required in order to determine whether the integrating links previously forged with the host Member State have been broken.

Header Photo: By David McKelvey