The claimant, who was suspected of terrorist activities but against whom no criminal charges had been established, complained that a control order imposed on him was so extensive as to amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Held: The order was a nullity. It was so extensive as to amount to a deprivation of liberty and as such was ultra vires the Act. However the review procedure was not incompatible with the right to a fair hearing. The court gave a certificate permitting an appeal direct to the House of Lords.
Judges:
Ouseley J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 651 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Prevention of Terrorism Act 1005 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AL Admn 17-Aug-2007
The claimant sought to challenge a control order made against him under the 2005 Act. He had not cross examined the prosecution witnesses saying that the procedure was unfair in that he had not been allowed to see all the evidence against him. He . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.250595
