Government loses control order challenge
The home secretary has pledged to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which today said the control orders used on terror suspects broke human rights law.
John Reid lost his attempt to overturn a previous court ruling that the restrictions placed on six terror suspects broke the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Three senior judges today agreed with Mr Justice Sullivan’s ruling earlier this year that the control orders imposed on the six Iraqi men, which included forcing them to stay inside for 18 hours a day, made them “rather like prisoners in a cell”.
It is the latest attack on the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, which only today came under fire from a committee of MPs for relying too much on holding suspects under administrative detention rather than trying to get them through the courts.
“We agree that the facts of this case fall clearly on the wrong side of the dividing line,” the appeal judges said in today’s statement.
“The orders amounted to a deprivation of liberty contrary to article five [of ECHR].We consider that the reasons given by Mr Justice Sullivan for quashing the orders are compelling.”
The men were arrested under anti-terrorism laws but released without charge, as there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them.
Instead, under powers granted to him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the home secretary imposed restrictions on their movement in the form of control orders.
However, Mr Reid has already announced his intention to continue his opposition to the ruling in the House of Lords, saying control orders were an “essential part” of the government’s efforts to tackle terrorism.
In a minor victory for the home secretary, the Court of Appeal did allow his challenge to a previous ruling that the human rights of another person given a control order had been breached because he was not given a fair hearing before the restrictions were introduced.
Shadow home secretary David Davis said today’s ruling was another example of the government’s “failure and incompetence” that had put the safety of the British people at risk.
“When the government’s last set of anti-terror measures collapsed as a result of their incompetence in dealing with their own Human Rights Act, we offered them an extension of those laws to allow time to come up with workable, robust effective new laws. They turned us down,” he said.
