A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, United Kingdom House of Lords, December 16, 2004 [holding that the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects without charge by the British government under section 23 of the Antiterrorism, Crime & Security Act of 2001 is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into domestic law by the UK Human Rights Act]. Excerpt (from the judgement by Lord Nichols):

Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law. It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford. Wholly exceptional circumstances must exist before this extreme step can be justified.

The government contends that these post-9/11 days are wholly exceptional. The circumstances require and justify the indefinite detention of non-nationals suspected of being international terrorists.

The principal weakness in the government's case lies in the different treatment accorded to nationals and non-nationals. The extended power of detention conferred by Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 applies only to persons who are not British citizens. It is difficult to see how the extreme circumstances, which alone would justify such detention, can exist when lesser protective steps apparently suffice in the case of British citizens suspected of being international terrorists.

Three years have now elapsed since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. A significant number of persons suspected of terrorist involvement in this country are British citizens. In the case of these nationals the government has, apparently, felt able to counter the threat they pose by other means. Although they too present a threat to national security, in their case the government has not found it necessary to resort to the extreme step of seeking an extended power of detention comparable to that contained in the 2001 Act.

No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming on this point. The government has vouchsafed no persuasive explanation of why national security calls for a power of indefinite detention in one case but not the other. Non-nationals may comprise the predominant and more immediate source of the threat to national security, but they are not the only source.

Read the full text of all the judgments here [PDF]. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.