You may well have been reassured by the recent media reports that that the “government's anti-terror strategy” had suffered a blow after the High Court ruling last week revoking a control order on “AN”, a British suspect accused of links to al-Qaeda. The ruling came after nine Law Lords unanimously agreed that suspects had a right to understand the allegations they face so they could mount a proper defence of their liberty; and that terror suspects held on these orders must be given a better idea of the case against them.
Mr Justice Mitting revoked the order against “AN” after the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, chose to drop part of the case against him rather than reveal it. This was the first case of three set to be re-heard at the High Court after the Law Lords' decision.
However, the High Court also heard that Johnson was already taking steps to make a new order - which “AN” will not be able to challenge before the autumn; and the Home Office issued a statement, saying that “we consider that there remain grounds for a control order and have been granted permission by the court to make a new one.” Further, the Law Lords had also ruled that the “restrictions to liberty” under control orders, which amount to house arrest, were “reasonable”.
“AN” was among the three test cases that went to the Lords. He was placed on a control order in July 2007. The Home Secretary alleged that he was linked to al-Qaeda and had plotted terrorism overseas, including in Iraq. “AN” is currently in Belmarsh prison, awaiting trial for allegedly breaching his control order. His lawyers say he has twice attempted suicide. In earlier hearings, counsel for the Home Secretary said that “AN” had sufficient opportunity to challenge his restrictions, thanks to six paragraphs of allegations placed in the public domain. But the Home Secretary then withdrew some of the case when told by the court that more information needed to be made public. Revoking the order, Mr Justice Mitting said that because the evidence against AN had not been disclosed, he had been left not knowing the "essence" of the case against him.
Thus, the government has actually succeeded in defending control orders despite predictions they were doomed – as they should be. The Law Lords were driven by the European Court’s view that more secret evidence must be revealed in cases like this. But the Home Office has evaded the controversy over the use of closed material by withdrawing its old case - and seeking a new order on different terms. So despite winning, “AN” is in the same place as before - in custody. He will challenge the new order - and the High Court will, in essence, hear all the same arguments again. The Law Lords' judgment shifted the balance towards suspects' rights, but not enough to make a real difference and end the heartless control order regime.
