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 each 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. The CORGs for this quarter fall outside of this reporting period and will be covered in the next report. However meetings were held in relation to the control orders in force within this reporting period on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
During the period
In total, 17 control orders are currently in force, six of which are in respect of British citizens. Five individuals subject to a control order live in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals live in other police force areas. All of these control orders are non-derogating. One individual has been charged with breaching a control order obligation; no prosecutions for breaching a control order were completed during this reporting period.
During this reporting period, 62 modifications of control order obligations were made. Twenty-one requests to modify control order obligations were refused. A right of appeal is provided for by section 10(1) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. One appeal has been lodged with the High Court by a controlled person in relation to the renewal of a control order during this reporting period. A right of appeal is also provided for by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order and/or to modify any obligation under the order. One appeal has been lodged with the High Court by a controlled person relating to a refusal to modify his control order.
Three judgments have been handed down by the High Court in control order cases during this reporting period in relation to substantive reviews of the individual control orders under section 3(10) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AR a judgment was handed down on
Two controlled persons applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against High Court judgments in the substantive reviews of their control orders in this reporting period.
A judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Abu Rideh on
Full judgments are available at: http://www.bailii.org/.