The applicants had challenged non-derogating control orders restricting his liberty on the basis that he was suspected of terrorist intentions. The Home Secretary appealed an order finding the restrictions to be unlawful.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal failed. The restrictions imposing an 18 hours a day curfew, and additional substantial movement and association restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The difference between deprivations of liberty and restrictions on liberty of movement were ones of fact and degree. It was not correct to ignore the additional external restrictions when considering whether they amounted to a deprivation of liberty. On these facts the judge was clearly right to make his finding.
Citations:
Times 18-Aug-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1141, [2006] HRLR 38, [2007] QB 446, [2006] UKHRR 1081, [2006] 3 WLR 866
Links:
Statutes:
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others Admn 28-Jun-2006
The claimants challenged the terms of restrictions placed upon them under the Act. . .
Applied – Guzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .
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 . .
Appeal from – 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 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Human Rights
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244107