The controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Control Order applied to a British citizen has been ruled to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act, which incorporates some of the fundamental human rights outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights into British law.
Terror suspect wins rights battle
Apr 12 2006
The first British citizen to have a control order imposed on him as a terror suspect by the Home Secretary has won a High Court declaration that the Government's anti-terror laws are "incompatible" with human rights laws because they have denied him a right to a fair hearing.
The terror suspect, referred to as MB, was made subject to the order, which involves a form of house arrest, by the Home Secretary in September 2005.
The BBC report identifies a different anonymous Contol Order suspect "S" !
His lawyers argued the order could not stand because aspects of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) breached his human rights.
But Mr Justice Sullivan allowed their legal challenge. It was the first of 12 orders which are coming up for review by the High Court.
Mr Justice Sullivan said the control order system was "conspicuously unfair". He said: "To say that the Act does not give the respondent in this case ... 'a fair hearing' in the determination of his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be an understatement.
That should be Article 6 The Right to a Fair Trial rather than Article 8.
"The court would be failing in its duty under the Human Rights Act, a duty imposed upon the court by Parliament, if it did not say, loud and clear that the procedure under the Act whereby the court merely reviews the lawfulness of the Secretary of State's decision to make the order upon the basis of the material available to him at that early stage are conspicuously unfair."
The Control Orders remain in place whilst the NuLabour Home Office wastes more of our public money by appealing against this decision.
If Charles Clarke had any honour, he would resign as Home Secretary.
The certainty of a Human Rights Act 1998 challenge to this bad law was made clear in tthe debates in Parliament when it was passed last year, and when it was controversially renewed without a vote this year Suspects are kept under "house arrest", wiithout a proper trial, without even hearing what they are actually accused of, let alone being able to challenge any secret evidence against them.
If there is evidence against terrorists or others, then charge them, bring evidence against them in a court olaw and convict them here in the UK.
If not, then keep them under the state authorised secret surveillance in the hope of catching other conspirators as well.
Under the Control Order scheme, all of the intelligence gathering benefits of secret surveillance are lost (how many real terrorists would continue to communicate with their co-conspirators ?), but almost none of the costs are saved, since the subjects still have to be kept under 24/7 surveillance to see that they do not breach their Control Orders, but they are not locked up in prison.
Incredibly, the BBC and Sky TV news are blathering on about the ongoing show trial (not even the verdict) of the alleged 20th Septemeber 11th 2001 hijacker in the USA (the one who was arrested 3 weeks befoere the attacks), instead of this much more important British legal case involving terrorism and our fundamental human rights.