The end of control orders?
Following the House of Lords decision in the AF and others case last year, ruling that individuals subject to such orders must be given sufficient reasons as to why they are being controlled, several control orders have been lifted. The outcome of this ruling means that the government has the choice of either providing disclosure of the reasons the control order has been made or of dropping the order; without this disclosure, such orders are illegal. In all cases, the government has chosen not to provide disclosure and the control orders have been lifted. In some cases, however, the government has chosen to work around the secret evidence issue to impose new “lite” control orders, without curfews, tags or visiting restrictions, arguing that the duty to provide disclosure does not apply to such orders.
Even where control orders have been dropped, the men concerned who have sometimes had these orders imposed on them, and their wives and children if they have families, for several years, still have no way of knowing what that secret evidence used to restrict their freedom was, ensuring that the ruling has not undermined the arbitrary power of the government.
Faraj Hassan, a Libyan former control order subject, had his order lifted in late December last year. It was imposed after the government decided that he and another Libyan national, who had his order lifted last month, were a threat to national security who could not be removed by deportation from this country as this move was blocked by a Court of Appeal ruling in a separate case in 2008. Commenting on the ruling in his case, Mr. Hassan said, “A control order is nothing more than a euphemism for what is basically Apartheid-style house arrest. Likewise there should be no doubt that its purpose is the same as well to break you and make you want to leave that country.” (Source: Cageprisoners). By the time an it is lifted, the secretive and arbitrary nature of control orders will have already had a destructive effect on the physical and mental health of the men involved and their families.
On 18 January 2010, two former controlees, AE and AF, had their control orders quashed, as the Home Secretary refused to provide disclosure of the reasons these orders were made. Mr. Justice Silber ruled that without this evidence being made known to AE and AF, there was no case for imposing or renewing the control orders, which were thus effectively illegal, as was the nature of the restrictions. This has paved the way to the possibility of these former controlees suing the Home Secretary for damages for the unlawful restrictions. The Home Secretary has said that he will appeal this decision.
