UK judges rule against house arrest for 'extremists'

LONDON - Britains highest court on Wednesday in its historic decision judgement said that control orders under the terrorism act 2005 are breach of human rights.
The law lords have dealt a major blow to the governments controversial use of control orders on terror suspects especially against Muslims, saying that reliance on secret evidence denies them a fair trial. The law lords have dealt a major blow to the British governments controversial use of control orders on terror suspects, saying that reliance on secret evidence denies them a fair trial.
The nine-judge panel led by Lord Philips, the senior law lord, upheld a challenge on behalf of three men on control orders who cannot be named. The orders have not been quashed but the law lords have ordered that the cases be heard again. The three had argued that the refusal to disclose even the gist of the evidence against them denied them a fair trial under the Human Rights Act.
The British Home Office argued it was sometimes possible to have a fair hearing without any disclosure, depending on the circumstances of the case. Security-vetted special advocates are supposed to represent the interests of people placed on control orders. Orders imposed on individual suspects by the home secretary can include home curfews of up to 16 hours a day, a ban on travelling abroad, the approval of all visitors by the Home Office, monitoring of all phone calls, and bans on using the internet and mobile phones. In 2007 the law lords ruled that 18-hour curfews were in breach of the European convention on human rights.
The home secretary, Alan Johnson, said the judgment was extremely disappointing. Protecting the public is my top priority and this judgment makes that task harder, he said. Nevertheless, the government will continue to take all steps we can to manage the threat presented by terrorism. All control orders will remain in force for the time being and we will continue to seek to uphold them in the courts. In the meantime, we will consider this judgment, and our options, carefully.
Control orders had been introduced to limit the risk posed by suspected terrorists who could not be prosecuted or deported, he said. The government relies on sensitive intelligence material to support the imposition of a control order, which the courts have accepted would damage the public interest to disclose in open court, Johnson said.
We take our obligations to human rights seriously and as such we have put strong measures in place to try to ensure that our reliance on sensitive material does not prejudice the right of individuals subject to control orders to a fair trial.
In the ruling, Philips said: A trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him. Lord Hope said the slow creep of complacency must be resisted and that to protect the rule of law, courts must insist the person affected be told what is alleged against them.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the civil liberties group Liberty, said: I can think of no better way for the prime minister to make a fresh start for his government than to abandon the cruel and counter-productive punishments without trial instituted by his predecessor.
The Muslim Council of Britain MCB has welcomed the decision of Law Lords ruling over the use of secret evidence against nine alleged terror suspects of Pakistani origin and sees it as long overdue judicial intervention.
The use of secret evidence in obtaining sanction for restriction on ones liberty offends fundamental norms of civilized justice. However this offensive and immoral practice has been allowed to take root in our much-respected legal system on the basis that the security of the country demanded it. The highest court of our land has now ruled that this practice is unlawful and it must stop. We urge the government to accept without any reservation this powerful and well reasoned judgment of the House of Lords and ensure that the fundamental human right to fair trial is never compromised under any circumstances, said Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
We are fully supportive of bringing the full rigour of law to bear on those who engage or plan to engage in terror. At the same time we are strongly opposed to the use of practices and processes that have the serious potential to brutalise innocent people or restrict freedom without letting the affected people know why they are being treated in that way. Fair and independent judicial system is the hallmark of our country and this decision of the Law Lords is an apt reminder of our rich legal heritage.