header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 January 2008
Issue: 7303 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Public Law Update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Compatibility

Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF [2007] UKHL 46, [2007] All ER (D) 01 (Nov)

 

This case primarily concerned two questions arising from issues of the compatibility of control order hearing procedures with Art 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.

 

Both MB and AF were the subjects of non-derogating control orders.

 

Case facts

 

MB was a 24-year-old British citizen, born in . It was alleged by the secretary of state for the Home Department that MB had intended to travel to to fight against coalition forces, which MB denied. MB had sought to challenge his non-derogating control order. On 12 April 2006, Sullivan J maintained the order but declared PTA 2005, s 3 to be incompatible with Art 6(1) under s 4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998): [2006] EWHC 1000 (Admin). The Court of Appeal set aside the declaration of incompatibility

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll