Control order

Last updated

A control order is an order made by the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom to restrict an individual's liberty for the purpose of "protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism". Its definition and power were provided by Parliament in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Control orders were also included in the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.[ relevant? – discuss ][ not verified in body ]

Contents

The control orders section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act provides for extremely limited rights of appeal and the absence of double jeopardy restrictions (i.e. if a recipient managed to win an appeal in the Court of Appeal or other tribunal, the Home Office could simply re-apply the same order again). This has led to many court rulings highly critical of the orders. [1]

The Prevention of Terrorism Act and control orders were repealed in December 2011 by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. [2]

Powers

The list of possible restrictions and obligations that can be included in a control order is long. It can place restrictions on what the person can use or possess, their place of work, place of residence, whom they speak to, and where they can travel. Furthermore, the person can be ordered to surrender their passport, let the police visit their home at any time, report to officials at a specific time and place, and allow themselves to be electronically tagged so their movements can be tracked.

In short, it provides for a graduated scale of technological "prisons without bars" that are intended to work within the European Convention on Human Rights. [3]

When the control order crosses the line and "deprives liberty", rather than "restricts liberty", it is called a derogating control order because it infringes Article 5 of the ECHR. This can only happen if there is a derogation according to Article 15, and the Home Secretary must apply to a court for the authority. Derogation is only allowed when there is a "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".

The ECHR states that the government cannot deprive any person of their liberty without due process of law. This process must include informing the person of the accusation against him, giving him access to legal assistance to prepare his defence, and giving him the right to have his case heard and decided in public before a competent court. [4]

The government has claimed that the terrorist allegations against certain individuals are of such a nature and from such sources that they cannot be prosecuted "because that would mean revealing sensitive and dangerous intelligence". [5]

List of restrictions

History

The power to make control orders was voted through Parliament on the evening of 11 March 2005 after a famously long session of Parliamentary ping-pong. The ten detainees being held under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 were released from Belmarsh and were immediately subject to control orders. [6]

On March 24, 2005, one of the men, Abu Rideh, gave a newspaper interview where he denied having any connection with terrorism, and was able to outline the contents of his order. [7]

On April 16, 2005, it was reported that all 10 control orders had been printed with the same reason, connecting individuals with the Wood Green "ricin plot". It was blamed on a "clerical error". [8] [9]

On 23 May 2011, following a Government Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Measures published in January 2011, [10] the Home Office announced the scheme intended to replace the control orders: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM). [11] Although intended to be more flexible and to focus more on the investigation of the individual suspected of terrorism-related activity with increased judicial oversight, [11] they have been dubbed as mere re-brandings of control orders. [12]

Section 14 requires the Home Secretary to make a statement to Parliament every three months reporting about their exercise of the control order powers.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2000</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Act 2000 is the first of a number of general Terrorism Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It superseded and repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland Act 1996. It also replaced parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. The powers it provides the police have been controversial, leading to noted cases of alleged abuse, and to legal challenges in British and European courts. The stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Act have been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statutory instrument (UK)</span> Type of secondary legislation in the United Kingdom

A statutory instrument (SI) is the principal form in which delegated legislation is made in Great Britain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Acts</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Acts were a series of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1974 to 1989 that conferred emergency powers upon police forces where they suspected terrorism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew</span> British barrister and politician (born 1948)

Alexander Charles Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew, is a British barrister and crossbench member of the House of Lords. He was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Montgomeryshire from 1983 to 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liberty (advocacy group)</span> UK advocacy group and membership organisation

Liberty, formerly, and still formally, called the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), is an advocacy group and membership organisation based in the United Kingdom, which challenges unjust laws, protects civil liberties and promotes human rights. It does this through the courts, in Parliament and in the wider community. Liberty also aims to engender a "rights culture" within British society. The NCCL was founded in 1934 by Ronald Kidd and Sylvia Crowther-Smith, motivated by their humanist convictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Act 1998</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, formally introduced into Parliament on 19 November 2001, two months after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It received royal assent and came into force on 14 December 2001. Many of its measures are not specifically related to terrorism, and a Parliamentary committee was critical of the swift timetable for such a long bill including non-emergency measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004 that the detention without trial of eight foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with European human rights laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in the United Kingdom</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in the United Kingdom

Human rights in the United Kingdom concern the fundamental rights in law of every person in the United Kingdom. An integral part of the UK constitution, human rights derive from common law, from statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, from membership of the Council of Europe, and from international law.

In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence that lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for early release after a minimum term set by the judge. In exceptional cases a judge may impose a "whole life order", meaning that the offender is never considered for parole, although they may still be released on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Whole life orders are usually imposed for aggravated murder, and can only be imposed where the offender was at least 21 years old at the time of the offence being committed.

<i>A v Secretary of State for the Home Department</i> UK human rights case

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 56 is a UK human rights case heard before the House of Lords. It held that the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners in Belmarsh without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (LRRA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was enacted to replace the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (RRA). The Act was and remains very controversial, because of a perception that it is an Enabling Act substantially removing the ancient British constitutional restriction on the Executive introducing and altering laws without assent or scrutiny by Parliament, and it has been called the "Abolition of Parliament Act".

Anti-terrorism legislation are laws with the purpose of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliamentary ping-pong</span> British political term

Parliamentary ping-pong is a phrase used to describe a phenomenon in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which a bill appears to rapidly bounce back and forth between the two chambers like a ping-pong ball bounces between the players in a game of table tennis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom constitutional law</span> Law that constitutes the body politic of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom constitutional law concerns the governance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With the oldest continuous political system on Earth, the British constitution is not contained in a single code but principles have emerged over centuries from common law statute, case law, political conventions and social consensus. In 1215, Magna Carta required the King to call "common counsel" or Parliament, hold courts in a fixed place, guarantee fair trials, guarantee free movement of people, free the church from the state, and it enshrined the rights of "common" people to use the land. After the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution 1688, Parliament won supremacy over the monarch, the church and the courts, and the Bill of Rights 1689 recorded that the "election of members of Parliament ought to be free". The Act of Union 1707 unified England, Wales and Scotland, while Ireland was joined in 1800, but the Republic of Ireland formally separated between 1916 and 1921 through bitter armed conflict. By the Representation of the People Act 1928, almost every adult man and woman was finally entitled to vote for Parliament. The UK was a founding member of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Council of Europe, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom are part of UK constitutional law and have a long and formative history. This is usually considered to have begun with Magna Carta of 1215, a landmark document in British constitutional history. Development of civil liberties advanced in common law and statute law in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably with the Bill of Rights 1689. During the 19th century, working-class people struggled to win the right to vote and join trade unions. Parliament responded with new legislation beginning with the Reform Act 1832. Attitudes towards suffrage and liberties progressed further in the aftermath of the first and second world wars. Since then, the United Kingdom's relationship to civil liberties has been mediated through its membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom, through Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the drafting of the Convention, which expresses a traditional civil libertarian theory. It became directly applicable in UK law with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation is an independent person, appointed by the Home Secretary and by the Treasury for a renewable three-year term and tasked with reporting to the Home Secretary and to Parliament on the operation of counter-terrorism law in the UK.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that abolished control orders and provides new powers to allow the Home Secretary to impose restrictions on the behaviour of a specified individual via means of a "TPIM" notice. TPIM notices can include restrictions on movement, financial activity and communication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Anderson, Baron Anderson of Ipswich</span> British barrister and life peer (born 1961)

David William Kinloch Anderson, Baron Anderson of Ipswich, is a British barrister and life peer, who was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2017. On 8 June 2018 it was announced that he would be introduced to the House of Lords as a cross-bench (non-party) working peer. On the same day he was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE), for services to national security and civil liberties, in the Queen's 2018 Birthday Honours.

A. and Others v United Kingdom is a human rights case decided by the European Court of Human Rights. It unanimously held that holding prisoners indefinitely under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Article 5.

References

  1. ↑ "Judges reject government appeal over control orders". Garden Court North Chambers. 18 August 2006. Archived from the original on 24 December 2007.
  2. ↑ "Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011".
  3. ↑ Lettice, John (1 March 2005). "Restrict freedom to preserve liberty: cunning Home Office plan". The Register .
  4. ↑ "- ETS no. 005 - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". Council of Europe. Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  5. ↑ Blears, Hazel (10 March 2005). "It is the advice of the security...: 10 Mar 2005: House of Commons debates". TheyWorkForYou . Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  6. ↑ Bright, Martin; Hinsliff, Gaby (13 March 2005). "Chaos as first terror orders are used". The Observer . London. Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  7. ↑ "Control order flaws exposed". The Guardian. London. 24 March 2005.
  8. ↑ "Apology over control orders error". BBC News . 16 April 2005.
  9. ↑ Gillan, Audrey (16 April 2005). "Home Office says sorry to suspects for ricin blunder". The Guardian. London.
  10. ↑ Home Office (26 January 2011). Review of counter-terrorism and security powers: review findings and recommendations (PDF) (Report). Cm. Vol. 8004. Norwich: The Stationery Office. ISBN   978-0-10-180042-6. OCLC   700136320. OL   28251337W.
  11. 1 2 "Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act". 26 October 2016.
  12. ↑ Ryder, Matthew (28 January 2011). "Control orders have been rebranded. Big problems remain". comment is free. London: The Guardian . Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  13. 1 2 Charles Clarke Written Ministerial Statement, 16 June 2005 col. 23WS Control Order Powers (11 March 2005-11 June 2005)
  14. ↑ Charles Clarke Written Ministerial Statement, 10 October 2005 col. 9WS Control Order Powers (11 June 2005-10 September 2005)
  15. ↑ Charles Clarke Written Ministerial Statement, 12 December 2005 col. 131WS Control Order Powers (11 September 2005-10 December 2005)
  16. ↑ "Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism: 15 Feb 2006: House of Commons debates". TheyWorkForYou. 15 February 2006. Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  17. ↑ "Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005...: 15 Feb 2006: House of Lords debates". TheyWorkForYou. 15 February 2006. Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  18. ↑ Charles Clarke Written Ministerial Statement, 13 March 2006 col. 88WS Control Order Powers (11 December 2005-10 March 2006)
  19. ↑ Charles Clarke Written Ministerial Statement, 24 April 2006 col. 32WS Control Order Judgement
  20. ↑ John Reid Written Ministerial Statement, 12 June 2006 col. 48WS Control Order Powers (11 March 2006-19 June 2006)
  21. ↑ Travis, Alan; Gillan, Audrey (29 June 2006). "New blow for Home Office as judge quashes six terror orders". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  22. ↑ Tony McNulty Written Ministerial Statement, 11 September 2006 col. 122WS Control Order Powers (11 June 2006-10 September 2006)
  23. ↑ "Two terror suspects 'on the run'". BBC News . 17 October 2006. Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  24. ↑ "Home Office || Lord Carlile's review of the Home Secretary's quarterly reports to parliament on control orders" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-01-06. Retrieved 2006-12-13.
  25. ↑ "Home Office || Home Secretary's statement in response to Lord Carlile's recommendations on the reporting of control orders". Archived from the original on 2007-01-06. Retrieved 2006-12-13.
  26. ↑ "Control Orders and mobile phone and internet bans". Spy Blog. 13 December 2006. Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  27. ↑ Lords of Appeal (31 October 2007). "Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause: Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v. JJ and others (FC) (Respondents)". House of Lords . Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  28. ↑ Lords of Appeal (31 October 2007). "Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause: Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v. E and another (Appellants)". House of Lords . Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  29. ↑ Lords of Appeal (31 October 2007). "Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause: Secretary of State for the Home Department v. MB (FC) (Appellant)". House of Lords . Retrieved 2011-05-08.
  30. ↑ Tony McNulty Written Ministerial Statement, 17 September 2007 col. 126WS Control Order Powers (11 June 2007 to 10 September 2007)
  31. ↑ Commons Debate, 21 February 2008 col. 561 Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.