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 liberty as to be unlawful.
Held: The appeal failed. When looking at the lawfulness of an order, the court was to look at the effect of the order on the subject. The appellant had shown no error in law in the approach taken either by the court at first instance or on appeal. In practice the order imposed indefinite solitary confinement on the subject and exceeded his power to make them. It was not open to the court to quash individual elements of the order. Deprivation of liberty might take a variety of forms other than classic detention in prison or strict arrest.
Judges:
Bingham L, Hoffmann L (dissenting), Hale L, Carswell L (dissenting), Brown L
Citations:
[2007] UKHL 45, Times 05-Nov-2007, [2007] 3 WLR 642, [2008] 1 All ER 613, [2008] 1 AC 385, [2008] HRLR 5, [2008] UKHRR 80, [2008] Crim LR 489
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – 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. . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others CA 1-Aug-2006
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 . .
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 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Deparment v AN Admn 31-Jul-2009
The court re-considered a control order made on the basis of material withheld from the defendant. The Secretary of State had now withdrawn his reliance on that material, rather than make further disclosures. The prosecution invited the court to . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day.
Held: . .
Cited – Dolan and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another CA 1-Dec-2020
Lockdown Measures not Ultra Vires the 1984 Act
The appellants, a businessman, and mother, appealed from refusal of leave to challenge regulations made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic on 26 March 2020 and since which introduced what was commonly known as a ‘lockdown’ in England. They . .
Cited – Dolan and Others v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another Admn 6-Jul-2020
Challenge to closures of schools and other provisions taken under the Regulations.
Held: The Secretary of State had the legal power to make the Regulations. In making and maintaining the Regulations, he had not fettered his discretion. He had . .
Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.260313
