It now seems that there are 6 British Citizens who have not been charged , let alone convicted of a crime in open court, but who are being subjected to the controversial Control Orders, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
The subjects of these Control Orders do not know what they are accused of (in secret) and have no way of challenging the validity of any (secret) intelligence (not evidence) which could well have been gathered through the use of torture in foreign countries (therefore inherently unreliable), or perhaps electronic communications intercepts (illegal to use in Court under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for no good reason)
Control Order Powers
The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Mr. Tony McNulty): 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.
During the period 11 June to 10 September 2006, nine orders were made with the permission of the court under section 3(l)(a) of the 2005 Act—one in respect of a British citizen on 19 June 2006, one in respect of a foreign national on 31 July 2006, six in respect of foreign nationals on 1 August 2006 and one in respect of a British citizen on 5 September 2006.
The Secretary of State has also renewed one control order in accordance with Section 2 (4) (b) of the 2005 Act on 30 August 2006.
There are 15 control orders currently in force, six of which are in respect of British citizens.
During the period two requests to modify a control order obligation were agreed, and seven requests to modify a control order obligation were refused. A right of appeal exists in section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State not to modify an obligation contained in a control order.
It should be the duty of the British Government to prevent the detention or the restriction of the freedom of movement, the freedom and privacy of communications or the freedom of association etc. of any British Citizen, who has not been lawfully and fairly convicted of a crime, with the opportunity to challenge the evidence brought aginst him.
What was the point of fighting two World Wars and the Cold War, against repressive foreign police states, if not to uphold this very fundamental principle, which is now being betrayed by the current Labour regime ?
If there is no firm evidence that these people have access to firearms, explosives or other weapons, or to terrorist finance and have co-conspirators, then they do not actually pose any real threat to the United Kingdom. They should have been kept under legally authorised secret surveillance, in order to track down any really dangerous people they might be in contact with.
Now, instead, virtually the same amount of surveillance resources are required to keep them under surveillance to see if they break the terms of their Control Orders, or not, without actually gaining any real intelligence about their possible co-conspirators , who, if they exist, have been tipped off by the action of the UK authorities
If these are truely dangerous people, then the fact that they are not physically locked up in prison, but are under a form of house arrest, means that they are still free to commit acts of violence under the Control Order regime.
The Control Order scheme cannot be said to have made our lives any safer from real terrorists, and it should be scrapped as soon as possible.