Judge orders rethink over terror suspects

LEGAL restrictions on the movement of foreign nationals in Britain suspected of terrorism may have to be relaxed in the wake of a judge's ruling yesterday.

Worsening the already poor relations between the government and the judiciary, Mr Justice Sullivan yesterday dealt a serious blow to the "control orders" regime.

Sitting in the High Court in London, he condemned orders imposed by the government on six men, all Iraqis said by MI5 to be involved in terrorism.

The orders severely curtail the freedoms of the six, restricting their movements and ability to communicate. Five are forced to live at addresses chosen by the Home Office. All are confined indoors 18 hours a day. They have little ability to communicate with others, and visitors are strictly vetted.

The Home Office last night said it would appeal the ruling, the judge's second in two months against the control orders system.

John Reid, the Home Secretary, said public safety remained the government's top priority and vowed to impose the control orders when a suspect could not be deported.

"The obligations contained in control orders are necessary to protect the public and proportionate to the threat that these individuals pose," he said.

Eric Metcalfe, of Justice, the pressure group, welcomed the ruling, saying suspects should be charged, not tagged.

He said: "The control order legislation breaches two of the most basic rights in UK law - the right to liberty and the right to a fair hearing. The courts have made clear that - no matter how serious the threat of terrorism - virtual house arrest on the basis of the Home Secretary's suspicion is intolerable and contrary to our system of justice."

In April, Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which gives ministers power to impose control orders, broke the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said ministerial power to impose legal penalties contravened the right to a fair trial. The ruling could force ministers to replace the Terrorism Act.

Yesterday, the judge ruled the severity of restrictions imposed on the six men contravenes another right in the Convention, the right to liberty set out in Article Five of the document.

"The cumulative effect of the restrictions has been to deprive them of their liberty in breach of Article 5," the judge said, adding that the curbs on the men are more severe than those on convicted criminals in open prisons.

"Their lives are not free, but are for all practical purposes under the control of the Home Office," he concluded.

The Home Office is appealing against the April judgment, and last night confirmed an appeal will also be launched against yesterday's ruling.