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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll