Divisional Court
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2009.73.4.576 |
| Published date | 01 August 2009 |
| Date | 01 August 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Revocation of Control Orders under the Prevention of
Terrorism Act 2005
Secretary of State for the Home Department vAV [2009] EWHC 902
(Admin)
Keywords Terrorism; LIFG; Judicial review; Necessity
AV was a Libyan national who had come to the UK claiming asylum in
2002 and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2004. In 2006 he was
placed in detention pending deportation on the grounds that his pres-
ence was not conducive to the public good for reasons of national
security. He was later charged with two offences under s. 58 of the
Terrorism Act 2000 as a result of terrorism-related documents found
during the search of his flat. AV pleaded guilty to both offences and was
sentenced to a period of imprisonment, the custodial element of which
expired on 1 April 2008. On 4 April 2008, the Home Secretary imposed
a non-derogating control order on AV pursuant to s. 2 of the Prevention
of Terrorism Act 2005, for purposes connected with protecting members
of the public from a risk of terrorism. This order included a number of
obligations, including a 16-hour curfew, boundary on his movements
and a variety of other stringent conditions; it was subsequently modified
by the Home Secretary on a number of occasions. AV prepared a written
statement ahead of a court hearing to determine whether the decision to
make or modify the control order was flawed, pursuant to s. 10(3) of the
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. AV submitted that the decision was
flawed on the following grounds:
1. The Secretary of State had relied on a statement provided by the
Security Service that detailed a conviction for bombings by a
Moroccan court. It was submitted that this was contrary to the
accepted policy not to rely on statements reported to have been
made by those detained by the authorities of states with a ques-
tionable record of treatment of suspects and detainees.
2. There were not reasonable grounds to suspect that X had been
involved in terrorism-related activity.
3. Making and continuation of the control order was not necessary
for purposes connected with protecting members of the public
from the risk of terrorism.
H
ELD
,
GIVING JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY
, the control order would be
revoked. The decision of the Secretary of State had not been founded on
the statement regarding the Moroccan conviction and references to
the statement had been subsequently deleted from the control order.
Mitting J did, however, hold (at [6]) that had the statement been relied
on, the decision to make the order may have been flawed. There were
reasonable grounds to suspect that AV had been involved in terrorism-
291The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL 291–297
doi:1350/jcla.2009.73.4.576
To continue reading
Request your trial