Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH: Admn 9 May 2008

The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even under less stringent terms.
Held: The restrictions imposed fell just within the boundary of a restriction on liberty without becoming equivalent to a deprivation on liberty and therefore article 5 was not engaged, and the Secretary of State’s decision to make, renew and continue the Order were not flawed.
Mittling J
[2008] EWHC 1018 (Admin)
Bailii
Terrorism Act 2000, European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AN Admn 29-Feb-2008
The court considered a challenge to a non-derogating control order.
Held: Mitting J said: ‘the conclusion which I draw from the four speeches of the majority in MB is that unless, at a minimum, the Special Advocates are able to challenge the . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AF Admn 9-Apr-2008
There is no exception to the requirement that a person subject to a non-derogating control order has the right to a fair trial where the secret evidence shows that the subject of the order has no conceivable answer to the claim. . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others HL 31-Oct-2007
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v MB CA 1-Aug-2006
The Secretary of State appealed a declaration that the restrictions imposed on the complainant under the 2005 Act were an infringement of his human rights, and a declaration of incompatibility as regards section 3.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoHXA v The Home Office QBD 21-May-2010
The claimant challenged as unlawful his administrative detention for 10 months pending deportation. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.267583