Judges give mixed ruling on control orders

The law lords have ruled that some of the government's control orders breach the human rights of terrorism suspects.

The senior judges stopped short of condemning the entire regime as unlawful, but in rulings on 10 individuals they said control order restrictions such as the 18-hour home curfew were too long.

They also upheld the authorities' ability to impose a 12-hour curfew and said the wider regime was lawful.

But they criticised the government for attempting to drastically restrict the movements of some terror suspects and ruled that evidence procedures were unfair.

Under the ruling, the government can continue using control orders - which mean that suspects can be electronically tagged and banned from using the internet, or meeting with unauthorised visitors.

Although the judges said the orders do not amount to a criminal penalty and do not necessitate the need for a criminal trial, they said that they must be subject to a fair civil trial.

And, pointing to two of the cases in which this had been breached by so-called "special advocate procedures", the judges referred these back to court to be re-considered.

Detention

The controversial system was introduced two years ago after the law lords ruled that the previous anti-terror measure of indefinite detention without trial had breached the rights of some suspects.

Ministers have defended the system, saying they are needed when the authorities do not have enough evidence to prosecute on a terrorism charge but there is some intelligence that an individual is involved.

And home secretary Jacqui Smith said they were "an important tool" in protecting the public.

"There are difficult decisions to be made about national security where there is... strong intelligence and evidence that somebody might be plotting something pretty heinous against the British people, but where it isn't possible to bring someone in front of a court," she said.

"Control orders fill that gap. We've never argued that they are perfect, but they are an important tool in my ability to be able as far as possible to keep the British public safe.

"That's why we've argued for them and that's why I'm pleased that the regime has not been quashed today."

But the Conservatives called on the government to undertake a review of the control order system.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said the Tories had warned the government that "the control order regime they rushed through was a recipe for further legal challenges".

"They failed to heed that warning and today's judgment is the unfortunate, but predictable, consequence," he said. 

However, he accepted the "difficult predicament facing the government" and said if the review concludes that the situation "is so grave as to justify derogating from its Human Rights Act in order to protect the public, it will need to come to Parliament and explain its position".

Excesses

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg welcomed the stopping of "the very worst excesses of control orders" but called on the government to "accept that the game is up and that cross-party talks on alternatives to control orders must be convened urgently".

"It represents yet a further unravelling of a system which the Liberal Democrats have long said is wrong in principle and flawed in practice," he said.

"How can it be right to impose what amounts to home detention without giving suspects any evidence for such a measure and then have almost half of those people subject to control orders abscond altogether?"

And human rights campaigners said the mixed ruling undermines the regime, with Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti describing it as a "significant blow" to the system.

"These decisions will cause few celebrations at Liberty or the Home Office, and fully satisfy neither fairness nor security," she said.

"The authorities have rightly lost their most draconian 18-hour curfews without trial. Whilst that is a body blow to Blairite policy, it is now left to the Strasbourg court or Westminster Parliament to restore the age-old right to a fair trial."