Another control order ruled unlawful

6 October 2010 by

CA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2278 (10 September 2010) – Read judgment

The High Court has ruled that a a control order which required the “controlee” to relocate and live at an address in Ipswich, away from his family in Crawley, was unlawful.

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP [2010] UKSC 24, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of a man subject to a control order based on the argument that confinement to a flat 150 miles away from his family amounted to a breach of his human rights under Article 5 of the ECHR (right to liberty). The case of CA provides another example of the court striking down a relocation provision in a control order, and is the latest in a long series of court judgments which have chipped away at the controversial scheme.

The appellant in this case was a British citizen, born in Crawley to parents of Pakistani origin. A control order was served on him on 16 February 2010, accompanied by a letter explaining that he was to be relocated to Ipswich one week later, to live apart from his wife and two children.

Mr Justice Mitting upheld an appeal against the modification which effected this relocation in late July, ruling that CA be permitted to return to Crawley, subject to stringent conditions to be imposed by the Secretary of State. On 10 September 2010 he released an open judgment (which was accompanied by a closed judgment) outlining the reasons for his decision.

In examining the proportionality of the decision to relocate CA to Ipswich, the judge acknowledged that “[b]reaking up loose groupings of individuals, by dispersion of some of them” is a legitimate means of minimising the risk of terrorism. He also accepted the existence of the risks that CA posed, and the fact that restrictive measures imposed on any residence in Crawley could not “remove them”.

Nevertheless, in noting that he was required to “subject the measure to intense scrutiny and to explore alternative means of achieving the same result”, he concluded that the relocation of CA to Ipswich could not be upheld. His particular focus was the impact that the relocation would have on CA’s family life. Accepting the evidence of CA’s wife that relocation could lead to the end of their marriage, and that their continued relationship was almost certainly conditional upon CA refraining from engaging in any terrorism-related activity, he concluded that (a) living with his family would mitigate the risk of CA engaging in such activity, (b) separation would exacerbate that risk, and (c) the advantage to be gained from removing CA from Crawley could not justify the destruction of the unity and welfare of his family.

While the control order scheme continues to stumble in the face of judicial scrutiny, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has recently admitted the possibility that following the coalition government’s review of counter-terrorism legislation, their use would continue. Mr. Clarke played a prominent role in opposing the introduction of the scheme in 2005: he said in a speech that he “strongly opposed control orders because I do not believe that politicians should ever have the power to deprive people of their liberty.” However, senior police and security figures have been advocating their retention. Only nine control orders currently remain in force.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: