header-logo header-logo

10 January 2008
Issue: 7303 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Public Law Update

Control Order Cases

Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and Ors [2007] UKHL 45, [2007] All ER (D) 489 (Oct)

 

This case concerned the question of whether non-derogating control orders imposed on six individuals under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA 2005) breached Art 5 (right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

 

PTA 2005 provides for control orders that place obligations and restrictions on individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity. There are two different types of control orders:

 

The derogating control order is more restrictive: it imposes obligat be incompatible with liberty under Art 5. D ing control orders can be made pursuant to order (made under th Human Rights Ac 1998, s 14 (1)) designat ing a derogation from Art 5 where there is “a public emergency ”. No designating order for a derogation from Art 5 has been made.

 

The non-derogating control order, where no derogation has been made from Art 5.

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll