Control orders punish suspects without charge or trial but do nothing to protect the public from genuinely dangerous people.
Liberty today renewed its calls for Parliament to abandon this shameful relic of the War on Terror and return to the best traditions of British justice by prosecuting suspects before the Courts.
Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:
"The end of control orders is long overdue. Established as a quick political fix in 2005, they have achieved neither justice for suspects nor security for the British public. Suspects are driven mad by endless punishment without charge but are so loosely supervised that a truly dangerous individual could easily wreak havoc. Only charges, evidence and proof will protect our lives and our way of life in the long-term.”
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 – all without police interview, charge or trial.
Contact: Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128 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 Britons 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. 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. Another ex-controlee, Abu Rideh, was subject to punishment without trial for 7 ½ years supposedly because he was a grave danger to the public, yet during this time he frequently attended large public gatherings unimpeded by the authorities. A transcript of Cerie Bullivant’s story in his own words is available to the media by contacting the Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656.
3. 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 particular, Liberty has suggested removing the bar on intercept (phone tap) evidence in criminal trials as 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.
4. Liberty’s latest briefing on the control order regime is available here:
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy10/liberty-s-briefing-on-control-order-renewal-2010-house-of-commons.pdf 5. The control order regime is discredited and Parliament must end it. A significant blow to the regime came in June last year when the House of Lords ruled that suspects must be told the ‘gist’ of the case against them – this decision can be found here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090610/af.pdf 
