header-logo header-logo

08 November 2007
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Blow to government on control orders

News

A defendant’s right to a fair hearing in control order cases takes precedence over government claims of secrecy, the House of Lords has ruled.
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, defendants are not allowed to know the evidence against them where the judge agrees that its disclosure would be contrary to national security.

However, in JJ & MB & E v Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ, MB, AF, E and another, the majority of law lords concluded that the defendants had not enjoyed a fair hearing due to their inability to know the key accusations against them.

Lord Brown referred to the right to a fair hearing as “not merely an absolute right but one of altogether too great importance to be sacrificed on the altar of terrorism control”.

The law lords also upheld, by a majority of 3:2, an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal that the home secretary had no power to impose control orders involving 18-hour curfews on suspects.

Rejecting the government’s arguments on this point, Lord Bingham likened the curfews to being “in solitary confinement” and conditions generally as akin to “detention in an open prison”.

The law lords also held, however, that a 14-hour curfew did not breach the right to liberty provisions in Art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ali Naseem Bajwa, a barrister at 25 Bedford Row who acted for the appellant in MB, says the judgment is likely to affect most of the control orders currently in place and the secretary of state’s ability to make control orders in future.
He adds that “any procedure which adversely affects an accused person but prevents him from knowing the evidence—in some cases, even the allegation—against him is an affront to justice”.

Eric Metcalfe, JUSTICE’s director of human rights policy, says the rulings are a victory for fairness over secrecy, and liberty over suspicion.

The House of Commons is debating proposals announced in the Queen’s Speech this week to increase the length of time alleged terror suspects can be held without being charged from 28 to 56 days.

Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Jean-François Le Gal

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Jean-François Le Gal

Penningtons Manches Cooper strengthens international disputes team with appointment of leading arbitration partner

Shakespeare Martineau—Aaron Sanders & Kate Saunders

Shakespeare Martineau—Aaron Sanders & Kate Saunders

Shakespeare Martineau strengthens trust and estates disputes team with new appointments

Bellevue Law—Shannon Moore

Bellevue Law—Shannon Moore

Bellevue Law strengthens employment disputes and international advisory capability with senior associate appointment

NEWS
A divorced woman has secured funding to participate in her former husband’s inquest after the Legal Aid Agency reconsidered repeated refusals
The Thirlwall Inquiry has exposed a ‘complete failure’ to protect babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, but its recommendations must now be put into practice
More than 500 former rugby players can pursue brain injury claims despite serious failures to disclose documents ordered by the High Court
When does a solicitor’s retainer become a contentious business agreement? The Court of Appeal’s decision in Broadfield Law UK LLP v Barnes shows that listing hourly rates alone will not do, leaving firms and clients uncertain about their rights over bills
Developers in areas with poorly performing councils can apply directly to the Planning Inspectorate for permission under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
back-to-top-scroll