|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (Rev 1)  EWHC 651 (Admin) (30 March 2007)
Cite as:  EWHC 651 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| Secretary of State for the Home Department
|- and -
Mr T Otty QC and Mr Ahmad (instructed by Middleweeks) for the Respondent
Mr H Keith and Mr J Johnson Special Advocates (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor Special Advocate Support Office)
7th – 9th and 13th – 16th February 2007
Crown Copyright ©
- electronic tagging, residence at the address where he was already living (the "residence" does not include the common parts or outside areas to the block of flats), curfew between 6pm and 8 am, reporting to the monitoring company when he first leaves and last returns to the residence,
- entry and search of the residence at any time by the police or others authorised by the SSHD,
- restriction to a defined area of Greater Manchester, totalling some 9.3 sq miles, when he is out of his residence,
- prior identification and approval from the SSHD for visitors to the flat during the hours of curfew, six named individuals with whom contact is forbidden together with contact with any others notified as being subject to Control Orders- although there is no further restriction on whom he may meet outside the curfew hours whether in or out of the flat,
- attendance limited to one named mosque at which he may not lead prayers , lecture or provide religious advice,
- a prohibition on the use of the internet or a mobile phone anywhere or the use of a computer or other equipment which is capable of internet connection and permission only to use in the residence one fixed land line,
- surrender of passport and a prohibition on possessing documents for travel outside the UK without the prior agreement of the SSHD, an obligation to inform him of any intended departure or return to the UK and a prohibition on entering ports or stations which lead to international travel without prior agreement of the SSHD,
- banking facilities restricted to one account at an approved institution unless the SSHD consents to more, with details of the account and its operation to be provided to him,
- restrictions in the absence of SSHD consent on international money transfers or the sending of goods and documents abroad excluding personal letters,
- notification to the SSHD of the details of any employment.
The evidence: the need for the Order
Evidence: the impact and need for the obligations
AF's oral evidence
Deprivation of liberty
"It is the subjection to police and other searches of E's home and the requirement that all visitors (and pre-arranged meetings outside the house) be approved in advance which make the requirements particularly intense. The restrictions that apply within the house give E's home some of the characteristics of prison accommodation in which the prisoner has no private space and his visitors are all vetted.
The prohibition on unapproved visitors is no doubt a general one because the authorities are not confident that they have identified all of E's associates who are involved in terrorism-related activities or they may not wish to signal their interest in named individuals. But its generality adds significantly to the intensity and the burden of the restriction. I note that, in the case of pre-arranged meetings outside the house, each such meeting has to be approved, even where it only concerns family members and others who are authorised to visit E at his home. It is perhaps significant that, following the decision of the Court of Appeal in the JJ cases, the new control orders imposed on those persons permit them to receive any visitors they wish without notice to the Secretary of State and to meet anyone they wish outside their homes save persons the Secretary of State specifically identifies.
In none of the Strasbourg cases canvassed before me were there similar requirements concerning visitors and all meetings outside the residence, even with individuals authorised to visit the residence."
The Minister of State's decision
Consultation with the CPS
"The controlled person is bound by –
a) a control order,
b) the renewal of a control order, or
c) a modification by virtue of subsection (2)(d) or (5)(c),
only if a notice setting out the terms of the order, renewal or modification has been delivered to him in person."
Ignoring material considerations
Reasonable grounds for suspicion
Necessity for the Control Order
Necessity for the particular obligations
A fair hearing
"In the context of national security, non-disclosure, which may be extensive, coupled with the grave intrusions on liberty imposed on a detainee, makes it difficult, if not impossible, to find substitute procedures that will satisfy s.7."