header-logo header-logo

08 November 2007
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Blow to government on control orders

News

A defendant’s right to a fair hearing in control order cases takes precedence over government claims of secrecy, the House of Lords has ruled.
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, defendants are not allowed to know the evidence against them where the judge agrees that its disclosure would be contrary to national security.

However, in JJ & MB & E v Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ, MB, AF, E and another, the majority of law lords concluded that the defendants had not enjoyed a fair hearing due to their inability to know the key accusations against them.

Lord Brown referred to the right to a fair hearing as “not merely an absolute right but one of altogether too great importance to be sacrificed on the altar of terrorism control”.

The law lords also upheld, by a majority of 3:2, an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal that the home secretary had no power to impose control orders involving 18-hour curfews on suspects.

Rejecting the government’s arguments on this point, Lord Bingham likened the curfews to being “in solitary confinement” and conditions generally as akin to “detention in an open prison”.

The law lords also held, however, that a 14-hour curfew did not breach the right to liberty provisions in Art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ali Naseem Bajwa, a barrister at 25 Bedford Row who acted for the appellant in MB, says the judgment is likely to affect most of the control orders currently in place and the secretary of state’s ability to make control orders in future.
He adds that “any procedure which adversely affects an accused person but prevents him from knowing the evidence—in some cases, even the allegation—against him is an affront to justice”.

Eric Metcalfe, JUSTICE’s director of human rights policy, says the rulings are a victory for fairness over secrecy, and liberty over suspicion.

The House of Commons is debating proposals announced in the Queen’s Speech this week to increase the length of time alleged terror suspects can be held without being charged from 28 to 56 days.

Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll