Control orders 'conspicuously unfair'
High court judge rules control orders system conspicuously unfair
Wednesday, 12, Apr 2006 12:00
The government's use of control orders to deal with suspected terrorists is "conspicuously unfair" and "incompatible" with human rights legislation, the high court ruled today.
The first British citizen to have such an order imposed on him, known in court only as MB, challenged the system on the basis that it did not allow him a fair hearing – a right enshrined under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Today, Mr Justice Sullivan accepted his challenge, ruling: "To say that the Act does not give the respondent in this case ... 'a fair hearing' in the determination of his rights under article eight of the ECHR would be an understatement."
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the home secretary can restrict an individuals' movement, electronically tag them and stop them using the internet without judicial hearing, on the basis that he suspects him to be involved in terrorism.
The judge said ministers had tried to apply a "thin veneer of legality" to the process but the fact was that terror suspects' rights were being made by "executive decision-making untrammeled by any prospect of effective judicial supervision".
"The court would be failing in its duty under the Human Rights Act…if it did not say, loud and clear, that the procedure under the Act whereby the court merely reviews the lawfulness of the secretary of state's decision to make the order upon the basis of the material available to him at that early stage, are conspicuously unfair," he said.
However, the Home Office rejected the ruling, insisting the PTA was "fully ECHR compliant and contains rigorous safeguards to protect the rights of the individual, including judicial oversight and reporting and reviewing requirements".
It said it would appeal against the decision, and in the meantime insisted it would not limit the operation of the act, nor would it be withdrawing control orders from either MB or the ten other terror suspects, two of them British, thought to be under such a sanction.
"Nor will the judgment prevent the secretary of state from making control orders on suspected terrorists where he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of national security in future," the Home Office statement said.
"The government believes that control orders are the best way of addressing the continuing threat posed by suspected terrorists who cannot currently be prosecuted or, in respect of foreign nationals, removed from the UK."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg welcomed today's ruling, saying Britain should be "thankful" at having "a strong judicial system to overturn badly drafted legislation such as this".
The system of control orders was introduced last year after the law lords declared the policy of holding terror suspects indefinitely without charge as unlawful, and Mr Clegg insisted today's situation would not have come about if ministers had heeded that advice.
However, shadow home secretary David Davis criticised the government for introducing the Human Rights Act, the British version of the ECHR, in the first place.
"The government’s last set of anti-terror measures collapsed as a result of the government’s incompetence in dealing with its own Human Rights Act," he said.
"At that time we offered the government an extension of those laws to allow time to come up with workable, robust effective new laws, but they turned us down. If this judicial judgment cannot be overturned we will find that, yet again, the government’s incompetence has put the liberty and safety of our citizens at risk."