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 failed. Though the respondent had failed as described, that did not make the renewal of the control order unlawful. The respondent had consulted with the prosecuting authorities before the order had first been made.
Baroness Hale said that the core element under article 5 is that of confinement.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2007] UKHL 47, Times 13-Nov-2008, [2008] 1 AC 499, [2008] 1 All ER 699, [2008] Crim LR 486, [2008] HRLR 7, [2008] UKHRR 69, [2007] 3 WLR 720
Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Secretary of State for the Home Department v E Admn 16-Feb-2007
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Secretary 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 . .
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 . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimants were subject to non-derogating control orders, being non EU nationals suspected of terrorism. They now said that they had not had a compatible hearing as to the issue of whether they were in fact involved in terrorist activity.
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board Admn 7-Nov-2008
The prisoner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of three police officers in 1966. He served a longer time than the recommended minimum and had been transferred to an open prison anticipating release on licence. He now complained of . .
Cited – G v E and Others CoP 26-Mar-2010
E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.260312