16 Feb 2007

The High Court today criticised the Government for failing to consider a criminal prosecution for a terror suspect who had been deemed dangerous enough to be issued with a control order.

The judge found that the Secretary of State exceeded the powers given to him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and quashed the control order in the Secretary of State v E case. On 22 February Parliament will vote on the annual renewal of the PTA 2005 which established the control order regime. 
 
Since Parliament’s last vote to renew the anti-terror powers in February 2006, the Government has lost two of three control order challenges and three individuals on control orders have absconded. 

James Welch, Liberty’s Legal Director said: 
  
“Control orders are a mish-mash that neither leave us safer nor deal fairly and humanely with those subjected to them. The courts have now struck down several orders, while three of those subjected to them have absconded - this should hardly inspire public confidence.”  
 
Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128 
  
NOTES TO EDITORS
 
• On 22 February 2007 the Government anticipates that Parliament will renew the control order legislation for the second year running despite events of the last twelve months which have demonstrated that control orders are both grossly unfair and ineffective.
 
• Three of the eighteen men on control orders have now absconded showing that proper criminal trials and custodial sentences for the guilty would be far more effective at protecting the public.
 
• On August 1 2006 the Court of Appeal found that control orders deny an individual’s right to liberty but not his right to a fair trial. Significantly, the Court found that making people subject to curfews and restricting where they can live amounts to imprisonment. 
 
• In June 2006, the High Court declared control orders to be incompatible with Article 5 (the right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights and quashes the control orders of six foreign nationals. Fifteen people, both British and foreign nationals, are believed to be on control orders. 

• In April 2006, the High Court found in the control order case “MB” that he was denied the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the Human Rights Act). 
 
• The Government’s argument that it is impossible to prosecute terror suspects is fast unravelling. In the last year the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Head of MI5 have argued that it should be possible to use intercept evidence in court so that more terror suspects can be prosecuted.
 
• The human cost of control orders continues to mount. These orders affect not only the suspects who have become suicidal under house arrest; they have also destroyed the lives of the wives and children of these men. At least one desperate suspect chose to face the risk of torture in Algeria to ease his family’s suffering.
 
• It emerged that the Home Office has relied on flawed and inconsistent intelligence in the kind of secret proceedings used in control orders and the High Court has dismissed the judicial oversight of control orders as a “thin veneer of legality”.
 
• Control orders are fast becoming an international embarrassment criticised by, among others, the European Commissioner on Human Rights and the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture. 

• Control Orders were brought in by the Government under the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. So far 18 control orders have been served on people suspected of involvement in terrorism. A control order severely restricts who a person can meet, where they can go and all cases so far have involved electronic tagging. They can potentially last indefinitely. The person does not have to be accused of any crime and does not have to be told why he is under suspicion. 

• Liberty has called on the Government to remove the bar on intercept evidence in criminal trials because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges.