Talk:A v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

This article is completely incorrect. A v. SSHD was about the indefinite detention without trial of the "Belmarsh detainees". The House of Lords held that this was unlawful.

Contrarily, A v. SSHD (No. 2) was the case about the admissibility of evidence that has been or may have been obtained by torture. There is not (yet) an article on this on Wikipedia. Do not get these cases confused, they are entirely different. A is not the same as A (No. 2).

I offer to help and correct at least the torture case, if the Wikipedia community would like me to. Please could someone add to here their consent before I begin, to ensure I am doing the right thing? Note again that this article is incorrect and refers to the wrong case. 13th Law Lord 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who probably did most of the butchering, please go right ahead and fix it up. -PullUpYourSocks 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, I'll get onto it. Thanks. 13th Law Lord 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

Cleanup Co-ordination

This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
the article has multiple overlapping problems.
the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

You can use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. When there is a consensus that the article is cleaned up please remove the cleanup tag from the article

Discussion

The previous version may have been overly point of view but the current revert is to an article which is entirely factually incorrect. This was an incredibly important case in British Constitutional History, being the first time the House of Lords really exercised the powers given to them by the 1998 Human Rights Act. The decision was not on admissibility of evidence obtained through torture but on indefinate detention without trial of terror suspects which was declared incompatible with the Human Rights Act, thus prompting significant revision of our anti-terroriam Laws.

is the judiciary dictating what polocies the government can and cannot follow in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.220.116 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My plans for cleanup

As it stands, this article is more or less unsalvageably POV and OR. I propose reverting to the original version by User:PullUpYourSocks and expanding it from there. If no one objects I will go ahead and do this. Walton monarchist89 09:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all by me. It's certainly an article that could use expanding. I'm not familiar with the area of law beyond what is in the actual judgment, so I may not be able to contribute much. I'll take a look in any event. -PullUpYourSocks 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissenting judgment?

Lord Hoffmann is described as dissenting, but reading the judgment, it looks like he upheld the appeal. So isn't "dissent" the wrong way to describe his position? I understand that his reasoning was extremely different from the other judges', but his conclusion was the same, was it not? Johnleemk | Talk 01:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Actions

The article jumps from stating the right to appeal to SIAC to the opinions in the House of Lords. Clearly, this is an unsatisfactory leap and more is required on the actions in SIAC and the Court of Appeal. ISTB351 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]