Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
Control orders continue to be an essential tool to protect the public from terrorism, particularly where it is not possible to prosecute individuals for terrorism-related activity and, in the case of foreign nationals, where they cannot be removed from the UK.
As stated in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold Control Order Review Groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, three CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad-hoc basis as specific issues arose.
During the period
During this reporting period, 120 modifications of control order obligations were made. Sixty-one requests to modify a control order obligation were refused. A right of appeal exists in sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the 2005 Act respectively against decisions by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent, and against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to modify any such obligation. Ten appeals have been lodged with the High Court by controlled persons relating to modifications to orders or the renewal of orders in this reporting period. One of these appeals was subsequently withdrawn.
Seven judgments have been handed down by the High Court in control order cases during this reporting period. Three of these judgments have been handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Abu Rideh. An interim judgment in a modification appeal was handed down on
Two of the judgments handed down in this reporting period relate to the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AP. A closed judgment in relation to article 6 compliance was handed down on
Two judgments have been handed down in other cases in relation to modification appeals lodged by controlled persons. A judgment was handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AE on
Full judgments are available at: http://www.bailii.org/