15 Jul 2009

Tomorrow the High Court will once again consider the legality of control orders. The courts have slammed the control order regime on a number of occasions.

The cases of AN and AF will now be considered in the light of a recent damning House of Lords decision to which the Government is yet to respond.

Neither AN or AF has been told what they are accused of. Last month, the House of Lords ruled that it was unlawful to use "secret evidence" to subject people to indefinite punishment including electronic tagging and house arrest.

In that decision Lord Hope said:

“…a denunciation on grounds that are not disclosed is the stuff of nightmares. The rule of law in a democratic society does not tolerate such behaviour. The fundamental principle is that everyone is entitled to the disclosure of sufficient material to enable him to answer effectively the case that is made against him.”

Liberty calls the system “unsafe and unfair", failing both as a method of controlling genuinely dangerous people and protecting innocent suspects.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“As stupid as they are cruel, control orders are the worst hangover from Britain’s War on Terror. No real terrorist is ever going to comply with house arrest and a large number of suspects have disappeared. But an innocent person can be subject to indefinite and severe punishment without ever having been charged or brought to trial. “

The effect of this legislation is some people have been subject to detention and community punishment for over seven years on the basis of the Home Secretary’s suspicions and secret intelligence which the suspect will never see.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Control orders were brought in by the Government under the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act after the Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention without charge for foreign terror suspects in Belmarsh prison violated their human rights. Control orders (applicable to British and non-nationals alike) severely restrict who a person can meet, where they can go and all cases have involved electronic tagging. Restrictions have included lengthy curfews and bans on unauthorised visitors and internet access. Control orders can last indefinitely. The person does not have to be accused of any crime.

2. Despite the House of Lords decision that suspects must be told the substance of the case against them, the Government recently renewed the control order of AN without disclosing any further details of the case. The House of Lord’s decision can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090610/af.pdf


3. The Government’s argument that it is impossible to prosecute terror suspects is fast unraveling. Liberty has suggested that unnecessary hurdles to prosecuting terror suspects can be overcome in the following ways:

- Remove the bar on intercept (phone tap) evidence in criminal trials because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges. 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.

- More resources for police and intelligence services.

- In addition, since the Prevention of Terrorism Act was enacted, a range of new and broad terror-related offences have been added to the statute book making it easier for police to investigate and charge suspects.