Supreme Court Ruling on Control Orders
by Aisha Maniar
On 16 June, a Supreme Court panel of seven judges ruled unanimously that a control order that required the controlee to live 150 miles away from his family in London was a breach of his human rights. The controlee, AP, was moved away from London to prevent him associating with particular members of the Muslim community there and was moved to a location in the Midlands where he was isolated and had to remain indoors for 16 hours each day. For various reasons, it was difficult for his family to visit him there. The judges in their ruling held that the family circumstances of a controlee have to be taken into consideration before an order is imposed and the Home Secretary was wrong to argue that the personal circumstances of a controlee need not be taken into consideration. A week later on 23 June, the Supreme Court handed down a second judgment in this case to maintain AP’s anonymity due to the risks that could arise from his identity being disclosed.
AP is a 32-year old Ethiopian national who came to the UK in 1992 with his family. They have always lived in London since. In 1999, they were granted indefinite leave to remain. After travelling to Ethiopia and Somalia in 2005, he was detained by the Ethiopian authorities at the end of 2006 and upon his return to the UK on 28 December 2006, he was refused entry and was detained pending deportation until July 2007 when he was released under immigration bail conditions. The deportation application was withdrawn in early 2008 when he was instead placed under a control order. The terms of the order were varied in April that year and he was obliged to move to the Midlands where he faced social isolation. He was allowed to appeal in August 2008, however on 2 July 2009, the Home Secretary revoked the control order and instead decided to seek his deportation on national security grounds. He is currently subject, at the same address in the Midlands, to Special Immigration Appeals Commission bail conditions. Thus, while this particular appeal was of no benefit for AP himself, “the points it raises are said to be of some general importance with regard to control orders” (paragraph 8), hence the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The judgment can be read at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/24.html
More on this judgment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10327696.stm
