The claimant challenged a control order made against him, saying that the respondent had renewed the order despite failing to keep under review the possibility of prosecuting him, and that his mental health had suffered as a result of the order and that that had not been taken account of.
Held: Ony very limited weight should be given to E’s mental condition in the context of article 5. The order was likely to be renewed for successive twelve month periods. The applicant was significantly less socially isolated than controlled persons in othercases, but it was particularly importance that there was the same control over visitors to the home and meetings outside the home, and the same liability to spot checks and searches by the police at any time. These features made the obligations particularly intense somewhat as if he were accommodated in prison. The case was finely balanced but the cumulative effect of the restrictions was to deprive E of his liberty in breach of article 5 of the Convention.
Judges:
Beatson J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 233 (Admin), [2007] HRLR 472
Links:
Statutes:
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, European Convention on Human Rights 5
Cited by:
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and S CA 17-May-2007
The Secretary appealed against the refusal of renewal of a control order. It had been said that the secretary had failed properly to consider on the renewal whether there was sufficient evidence to justify instead a prosecution.
Held: The . .
At First Instance – Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and Another HL 31-Oct-2007
The applicant, who was subject to a control order, complained that the respondent had failed as required to keep under review the possibility of a prosecution, and had renewed the order without satisfying that requirement.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248948