The court re-considered a control order made on the basis of material withheld from the defendant. The Secretary of State had now withdrawn his reliance on that material, rather than make further disclosures. The prosecution invited the court to undertake not the exercise required by section 3(10) of the 2005 Act – to determine whether … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Deparment v AN: Admn 31 Jul 2009
A non-derogating control order had been made without the disclosure required by the decision of the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3)  UKHL 28;  2 AC 269. The issue was whether it should be . .
Review of control order. . .
The judge had made an order on the basis that a non-derogating control order was flawed. The order had been appealed successfully. He now faced a question, at the directions stage, as to whether he could hear the case again after it was remitted to . .
CD challenged the decision by the respondent to make him subject to a control order by way of a review under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act.
Held: The decision was justified. . .
The applicant was subject to a non-derogating control order. He contended that once the improperly admitted evidence was discounted, the respondent could no longer establish reasonable suspicion that he might be involved in terrorist activity. . .
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square mile area, and had … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF: HL 31 Oct 2007
Appeal against a decision given on a statutory review under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act of a control order. . .
Appeal by AF from an order refusing an application that a hearing under section 3(10) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 should be before a judge other than Ouseley J and made two declarations . .
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .