9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) which was the subject of the derogation" and added that "the powers contained in Part 4 could only be used to the extent that they were covered by the Order, otherwise they would fall foul of Article 5". At paragraph 44, Lord Woolf referred to what is required to justify a derogation: "The extent of the threat, required as a pre-condition to derogation, is more extensive than that required by the interests of national security. It is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. It is the broader formulation of national security which was considered in Rehman [2003 1 AC 153]". 25. An appeal to the House of Lords against the decision in A & Ors is due to be heard on 4 October 2004. 26. When considering the statutory framework, it is important to bear in mind the fundamental nature of "the right to liberty and security of person". Indefinite detention, to be lawful, requires the clearest justification and, in these cases, there is no conviction by a competent court to justify it. It must also be borne in mind that the United Nations Security Council has resolved under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter that there is a threat to international peace and security and in Security Council resolution 1373 has required all states to take comprehensive measures. These include: b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information; c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens; d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens; f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings; Further, states are called upon to: a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups; b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts; c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts; 27. To take such steps is an international legal obligation of the United Kingdom government. The Government's view that a public emergency, threatening the life of the nation within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Convention, exists in the United Kingdom, is consistent with the Security Council view of the situation. Insufficient scrutiny 28. The Appellants' first submission, and the oral submission made by Mr Gill QC, is that the Commission erred in affording an insufficient standard of scrutiny for the certification and detention of the Appellants. Having regard to the fundamental importance of the right to liberty and security of person and to the prospect of indefinite detention inherent in Part 4 of the 2001 Act, a very high standard is required to be applied when scrutinising the issue of a certificate under Section 21 of the Act, it is submitted. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 8/113