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 mile area, and had other severe restrictions.
Held: The judge’s overturning of the order had been based on a decision which had since itself been overturned. The order was not sufficient to amount to a deprivation of AF’s liberty. Non-derogating control order proceedings do not involve the determination of a criminal charge. The procedures for reviewing such orders were to be read down under the 1998 Act to the extent required to make them compatible with the Convention. The case was particulary difficult where a tribunal relied on material to which the defendant had no adequate opportunity to respond. Although it would usually be possible, with the special advocate’s assistance, for the controlled person to have a fair trial despite the use of closed material, in rare cases failure to disclose would be incompatible with article 6 and in those circumstances compatibility was to be achieved by reading down the statutory rules governing section 3(10) hearings providing for non-disclosure in such hearings.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2007] UKHL 46, Times 06-Nov-2007, [2007] 3 WLR 681, [2008] 1 AC 440
Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, European Convention on Human Rights 6, Human Rights Act 1998 3
England and Wales
Citing:
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 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 AF Admn 30-Mar-2007
The claimant, who was suspected of terrorist activities but against whom no criminal charges had been established, complained that a control order imposed on him was so extensive as to amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Held: The order was a . .
Cited – 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 – 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. . .
Cited – Secretary 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 – Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya PC 2-Apr-1962
A police Inspector had been dismissed on a finding of an offence against discipline. . He complained that he had not been allowed to see the report of the Board of Inquiry which contained prejudicial material and which had been relied upon by the . .
Cited – Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .
Cited – Customs and Excise Commissioners v City of London Magistrates’ Court QBD 2000
Access orders were sought by the Customs and Excise against banks to facilitate an investigation into the affairs of taxpayers and the issue was whether the resulting proceedings constituted ‘criminal proceedings’ within the meaning of section . .
Cited – Kostovski v The Netherlands ECHR 20-Nov-1989
No Anonymity for Witnessses in Criminal Trial
K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled . .
Cited – McMichael v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1995
In the course of care proceedings, medical and social services’ reports were disclosed to the courts, but not to the parents involved.
Held: The courts’ failure to show reports to the parents in care proceedings was a breach of the Convention. . .
Cited – Lobo Machado v Portugal ECHR 20-Feb-1996
One of the characteristics of a fair trial under article 6 is that the proceedings should be ‘adversarial’. The applicant’s right, in an adversarial hearing, to see and reply to material before the court: ‘means in principle the opportunity for the . .
Cited – Van Mechelen And Others v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Apr-1997
A Dutch court had convicted the applicants of attempted manslaughter and robbery on the basis of statements made, before their trial, by anonymous police officers, none of whom gave evidence before the Regional Court or the investigating judge. The . .
Cited – Garcia Alva v Germany ECHR 13-Feb-2001
The complainant had been arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and was detained on remand. When he brought an application for review of his detention his lawyers were not given access to a number of documents in the file, including the . .
Cited by:
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 – A, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
Cited – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
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 – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
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 . .
See Also – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – Tariq v The Home Office EAT 16-Oct-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Disclosure
HUMAN RIGHTS
(1) The procedure sanctioned by rule 54 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and by the Employment Tribunals (National Security) Rules . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
Cited – Chief Constable and Another v YK and Others FD 6-Oct-2010
cc_ykFD10
The court gave directions in Forced Marriage Protection order applications. An order had been made at the request of the police on behalf of A, and the court had declined to discharge it on A’s own application.
Held: Special advocates were not . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – Home Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
Cited – QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-May-2020
Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.260314