"Control Order" Controversy !

[phasma]

Three terror suspects on control orders have unanimously won a major ruling over the use of secret evidence.

Nine Law Lords allowed the men's appeals after they had argued they did not know what they were accused of.

The Law Lords have not quashed the men's control orders, but instead ordered their cases to be heard again.

The Home Office said it was "extremely disappointing". It uses control orders against terror suspects who cannot be tried because of secret information. (WTF?)

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said protecting the public was his "top priority".

"This judgment makes that task harder," he said, insisting they tried to ensure reliance on sensitive material would not affect the right to a fair trial.

'Creep of complacency'

The Law Lords ruling is a major decision about the legality of using large amounts of secret evidence in control order cases.

Under the system, terrorism suspects have their liberty restricted with home curfews, electronic tagging and bans on whom they can meet and where they can go.

The men can challenge the orders - but they are not allowed to see any of the secret intelligence assessments that form the basis of the restrictions.

Ruling in favour of the men Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the senior Law Lord on the case, said: "A trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him."

The eight other Lords agreed, with Lord Hope adding: "The slow creep of complacency must be resisted."

He said to protect the rule of law courts must "insist that the person affected be told what is alleged against him".

In practical terms, the ruling means the cases must return to the High Court lower courts to be reheard.

In turn, the Home Office will need to decide either to release more material to the men and to the public - or rescind the orders.

While the ruling does not ban control orders, it could have a major impact on the use of secret evidence in British courts. As of March this year, 17 men were being held on control orders.

There are thought to be at least 20 national security deportation cases which also involve closed material.

Following Wednesday's ruling Mr Johnson added: "All control orders will remain in force for the time being and we will continue to seek to uphold them in the courts. In the meantime we will consider this judgment and our options carefully.

"We introduced control orders to limit the risk posed by suspected terrorists whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.

"The government relies on sensitive intelligence material to support the imposition of a control order, which the courts have accepted would damage the public interest to disclose in open court."

He added that the government took human rights seriously.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8092763.stm

[phasma]

For anyone unfamiliar with this delightful peice of new UK law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_order

Control order
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A control order is an order made by the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom to restrict an individual's liberty for the purpose of "protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism". Its definition and power were provided by Parliament in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Control orders were also included in the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.

The control orders section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act provides for extremely limited rights of appeal and the absence of double jeopardy restrictions (i.e if a recipient managed to win an appeal in the Court of Appeal or other tribunal - the home office could simply re-apply the same order again). This has led to many court rulings highly critical of the orders. [1]

Contents [hide]
1 Powers
1.1 List of restrictions
2 History
3 Timeline of ministerial statements and legal challenges
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
 


[edit] Powers
The list of possible restrictions and obligations that can be included in a control order is long. It can place restrictions on what the person can use or possess, his place of work, place of residence, whom he speaks to, and where he can travel. Furthermore, the person can be ordered to surrender his passport, let the police visit his home at any time, report to officials at a specific time and place, and allow himself to be electronically tagged so his movements can be tracked.

In short, it provides for a graduated scale of technological "prisons without bars" that are intended to work within the European Convention on Human Rights.[1]

When the control order crosses the line and "deprives liberty", rather than "restricts liberty", it is called a derogating control order because it infringes Article 5 of the ECHR. This can only happen if there is a derogation according to Article 15, and the Home Secretary must apply to a court for the authority. Derogation is only allowed when there is a "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".

The ECHR states that the government cannot deprive any person of their liberty without due process of law. This process must include informing the person of the accusation against him, giving him access to legal assistance to prepare his defence, and giving him the right to have his case heard and decided in public before a competent court.[2]

The government has claimed that the terrorist allegations against certain individuals are of such a nature and from such sources that they cannot be prosecuted "because that would mean revealing sensitive and dangerous intelligence". [3]


[edit] List of restrictions
Possession and/or use of specified objects and substances.
Use of specified services and/or facilities.
Certain occupations and employment.
Carrying out specified activities.
Restriction on association and communications with specified people, or people in general.
Restriction of place of residence, and visitors to the residence.
Movements at certain times of the day, or to certain places.
Passport must be surrendered.
A requirement to admit specified persons to certain premises.
A requirement to allow specified persons to confiscate and/or scientifically examine any object on premises owned by the subject.
A requirement to allow electronic surveillance to be carried out and photographs taken.
Any other restrictions whatsoever for up to 24hrs, when it is deemed necessary

[Mike Philbin]

so with a Control Order they can detain but not try (national security)?

this contravenes the 42-day detention period (which is a crock anyway)

yeah, but they could try people in Military Courts (with clearance) couldn't they?  Wouldn't that be okay?  Oh....  yeah.

[phasma]

Guy on the news this am was an aysylum seeker from iraq. He has been subject to one of these orders for three years !

He is not allowed to use a mobile phone (interesting point here guys - why can`t he use a mobile? I thought they could read / hear everything said - maybe this is not the case ! or what would this matter?) He cannot use the internet, he has to limit his time out of the house to three hours a day, he cannot work, he cannot go to mosque, he cannot go anywhere - and he does not know why!

[Unintelligable Name]

How's that saying go? Can't think of it in it's entirety now..

"A true exercise of power is letting a condemn man about to die walk free."

Something like that, ring any bells? May have the word "pardon" in there.

I suppose the law is the law though... in their little legal world they love to reside in...

[phasma]

and yes - i dont see why they can`t use military courts

imagine being restricted without trial or knowing what you have supposedly done???

[Voskhod3]

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said protecting the public was his "top priority".

These people ARE the public.

If you've got something concrete on them then try them through the normal justice system.

This is an appalling abuse of human rights.

[phasma]

Apparently it isn`t (although i think it should be !)

Lord Hoffman said he will allow the appeal but he doesn`t like the fact that he had to do it because control orders are a good weapon ()

The govt is disappointed.

How would they like to be put under such conditions with no explanation?

[Voskhod3]

Habeas Corpus.

It's an ancient law.

That are crapping on the rights of the public left right and center.