9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) going to be possible within a reasonable time, detention will be unlawful". The Schedule then states that: "It is well established that Article 5(1)(f) permits the detention of a person with a view to deportation only in circumstances where 'action is being taken with a view to deportation' [and] that detention will cease to be permissible under Article 5(1)(f) if deportation proceedings are not prosecuted with due diligence." 314. The Schedule goes on to say that it might be impossible to "remove or deport a person on national security grounds" where "removal to their own country might result in treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention". In those circumstances, the Schedule explains: "If no alternative destination is immediately available, then removal or deportation may not, for the time being, be possible even though the ultimate intention remains to remove or deport the person once satisfactory arrangements can be made. In addition, it may not be possible to prosecute the person for a criminal offence given the strict rules on the admissibility of evidence in the criminal justice system of the United Kingdom and the high standard of proof required." 315. The Schedule to the Derogation Order ends by saying that: "[T]here may be cases where, notwithstanding a continuing intention to remove or deport a person who is being detained, it is not possible to say that 'action is being taken with a view to deportation' within the meaning of Article 5(1)(f) as interpreted by the [European Court of Human Rights]. To the extent, therefore, that the exercise of the intended power may be inconsistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 5(1), the government has decided to avail itself of a right of derogation conferred by Article 15(1) of the Convention …." 316. Formal notification of this derogation was apparently given to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe in accordance with ECHR Article 15(3), in effectively identical words to those contained in the Schedule to the Derogation Order. The UN and CAT 317. Before turning to CAT, it is worth referring to UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which requires all states to take comprehensive measures, such as "exchange of information", denial of safe harbour, cooperating and providing assistance in connection with criminal investigations with regard to those connected with, financing or supporting terrorist acts. The UK government is therefore bound to take such steps under international law. 318. The UK is similarly bound by CAT, which came into force on 26th June 1987. We were told that there are now well over 130 states parties to the Convention, which was produced under the ægis of the UN. 319. Article 1 of CAT defines "torture" as: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." 320. Article 2 provides: "(1) Each state party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measure to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 78/113