The newspaper applied to challenge the protection of the identity of the defendant subject to a control order under the 2005 Act. It said that there was no basis for the making of the order without first considering the Human Rights need for open justice.
Held: The general purpose of the control order related to the need to manage it and for the protection of the person subject to the order and his family. Whilst an anonymity order should not be made automatically, that was a very long way from saying that an order should not be made at the permission stage. The court should give some short reasons for the order. ‘In Control Order cases, although the Article 8 rights of the individual and his family can be engaged as a consequence of publicity being given to the SSHD’s suspicion about his involvement in terrorism, that private right may readily co-exist with the public interest in the effective operation of the Control Order. It is a continuing measure to control those who may pose a serious risk but who cannot be prosecuted or removed. Its effectiveness is an essential part, potentially the crucial part, of the balance which is to be struck pursuant to the particular statutory powers in the PTA. It would be a mistake to suppose that the SSHD seeks anonymity for the Controlled Person essentially out of concern for his wellbeing.’
Ouseley J said: ‘Such public identification may lead to harassment of and the risk of violence to the individual and his family by groups or individuals. The individual may continue to live where he was living already, and may remain in his job which could be put at risk. A media thirst for detailed and accurate news, in the public interest, may generate persistent investigative reporting alongside highly intrusive watching and besetting. There may be a risk of disorder in any given local community. The knowledge that he is subject to a Control Order may conversely make him attractive to extremists in the area where he lives. It may make the provision of a range of services, including housing, to the individual or his family rather more difficult. If the individual believes that he faces these sorts of problems, he has a greater incentive to disappear, to live elsewhere in the UK or abroad. All of this can make monitoring and enforcement of the obligations more difficult, and increase significantly the call on the finite resources which the police or Security Service have to devote to monitoring the obligations. This all occurs in circumstances where the Secretary of State has been satisfied that serious criminal prosecution is not presently realistically possible, though not permanently excluded. There may therefore be an impact on other proceedings not yet underway.’
Ouseley J
[2008] EWHC 2455 (Admin)
Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Charkaoui v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 23-Feb-2007
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the procedure for immigration appeals involving the use of evidence not to be given to the applicant.
Held: The statutory procedures for reviewing certificates of inadmissibility to Canada and . .
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 – Regina v Croydon Crown Court ex parte Trinity Mirror Plc; In re Trinity Mirror plc CACD 1-Feb-2008
An order had been made protecting the identity of a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of children. The order was made in the interests of his own children, although they had been neither witnesses in the proceedings against . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – McCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited HL 2-Nov-2000
(Northern Ireland) The defendant reported a press conference at which the claims denying the criminal responsibility of an army private were made. The report was severely critical of the claimants, who then sued in defamation. The defendants claimed . .
Cited – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA 10-Jun-1998
Limitation on Making of Anonymity Orders
A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
Cited – Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd, In the Matter of CANI 3-Apr-2001
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP (No. 2) SC 23-Jun-2010
The claimant had object to a Control order made against him and against a decision that he be deported. He had been protected by an anonymity order, but the Court now considered whether it should be continued.
Held: AP had already by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Media, Human Rights
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.277018