header-logo header-logo

Blow to government on control orders

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll