Liberty has long criticised the failure of control orders both as a method of controlling genuinely dangerous people and protecting innocent suspects. The human rights group urged the Government to move policy away from the war on terror and towards the rule of law.
A Liberty spokesperson said:
"Most people realise that control orders are both unsafe and unfair. Suspects are driven mad by endless punishment without charge but are so loosely supervised that many have disappeared.
There are reams of criminal offences with which to charge terror suspects. The Home Office should stop trying to save face over this discredited policy and pass the case files to the CPS where they belong."
Cerie Bullivant, who was on a control order for two years, said:
“Once I was under a control order my life changed beyond recognition. Friends turned against me and people were afraid….the control order grew more and more restrictive – it began with forced residence , no travelling and daily signing in at a police station and ended up with tagging, curfews, no studying and forced unemployment. The control order was based on secret evidence that neither I nor my lawyer ever saw.”
“The irony is that had I actually been someone dangerous, with criminal intent, the control order wouldn’t have stopped me. Instead all it achieved was to beat me down for two years and change my life forever.”
Control orders were established in 2005 and allow suspects to be indefinitely tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others without police interview, charge or 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 evidence which the suspect will never see.
Contact: Liberty press office 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 and does not have to be told why they are under suspicion.
2. The House of Lords decision that suspects must be told the substance of the case against them can be found
here.
3. Control orders are both unfair and unsafe; Cerie Bullivant was on a control order for two years and was subject to curfews, forced residence, house searches and tagging – when his control order was quashed the judge in the High Court said there were no reasonable grounds to suspect he was involved in terrorism. Abu Rideh, who was subject to punishment without trial for 7 ½ years, frequently attended large public gatherings unimpeded by the authorities.
4. The Government’s argument that it is impossible to prosecute terror suspects is fast unravelling. 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.
