Image copyright EPA Image caption Djamel Beghal was jailed for 10 years in France for a plot to blow up the US Embassy in Paris

The wife of a convicted terrorist, who was prosecuted after refusing to submit to a police interrogation, has lost her human rights case in the Supreme Court.

Sylvie Beghal claimed her rights were violated when she was questioned by police under anti-terrorism legislation while at East Midlands Airport in 2011.

Her husband Djamel Beghal was jailed in France for terrorism offences in 2005.

Five Supreme Court justices first analysed her case in November and have now ruled against her.

They concluded the police action was "proportionate" and necessary for the investigation of terrorism.

Mrs Beghal, who is French, had been detained for no longer than was necessary, they added.

She had already lost a case in the High Court, when three judges ruled against her in August 2013.

They ruled that schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 did not breach human rights. This law allows police to hold someone for up to nine hours and question them about whether they are involved in terrorism.

But they had suggested there might be "room for improvement" to anti-terror legislation which gave police the power to "stop, question and detain" those entering or leaving the country.

Questions unanswered

Mrs Beghal's husband is an Algerian man who was convicted and jailed in France on charges of leading a plot to blow up the US embassy in Paris.

He claims he was tortured and that his conviction is unfair.

The Supreme Court heard how Mrs Beghal had arrived back in England after visiting her husband with her three children when she was stopped.

Although not suspected of being a terrorist, police said they wanted to talk to her regarding "possible involvement" in terrorism.

Following the stop, Mrs Beghal refused to answer police questions without the presence of a solicitor.

She was allowed to speak to a lawyer on the phone before police asked her about her movements. When she refused to answer the questions, she was charged and later convicted of failing to comply with the order.

Mrs Beghal argued that the process of stopping and questioning "without reasonable suspicion" breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

Supreme Court justices also heard that Mrs Beghal appeared before magistrates in Leicester, where she was convicted of failing to comply with a duty to answer questions.