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, six 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
In total, 12 control orders are currently in force, nine of which are in respect of British citizens. Seven 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. There were no prosecutions for breaching a control order during this reporting period however one individual was charged with seven counts for breach of a control order obligation.
During this reporting period, 77 modifications of control order obligations were made. 29 requests to modify control order obligations were refused.
Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal 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 under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act has been lodged with the High Court 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. During this reporting period four appeals have been lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.
Six interlocutory judgments were handed down by the High Court during this reporting period in relation to disclosure required to make control order judicial review proceedings under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act compliant with article 6 following the June 2009 House of Lords judgment in AF & Others.
Two of these judgments were handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v BB & BC. In the first judgment, handed down on
A further two judgments were handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AS. At the hearing on 6 and
An interlocutory judgment was handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AN on
A further interlocutory judgment was handed down, about which it is not possible to say any more for legal reasons.
Two judgments have been handed down by the High Court in relation to modification appeals during this reporting period. The court handed down judgment in Secretary of State for the Home Department v BH on
The court handed down a judgment in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AS on
During this reporting period, the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in one case. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AU, the Court of Appeal found AU did not have any real prospect of success in his arguments that the judicial review of his control order had not been article 6 compliant and that when the Secretary of State decided to impose a control order in this case, he was not entitled to consider allegations which formed part of the previous criminal prosecution and sentence.
Full judgments are available at: http://www.bailii.org/