CIVIL liberties groups have called on the government to reform its controversial system of control orders after three terror suspects held under virtual house arrest won their appeals at the House of Lords.
The Home Office uses control orders against terror suspects who cannot be tried because of secret intelligence.
But a panel of nine law lords ruled the use of secret evidence at control order hearings did not amount to a fair trial and contraven
ed the European Convention on Human Rights.
They did not quash the men's orders, but one of the law lords warned the ruling could lead to the end of the whole system.
In practical terms, yesterday's ruling means the cases must return to lower courts to be reheard. In turn, the Home Office will either have to release more material to the men and to the public – or rescind the orders.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson called the decision "disappointing" but said all control orders would remain in force for now. He said protecting the public was his top priority.
"This judgment makes that task harder," he said, insisting the authorities tried to ensure reliance on sensitive material would not affect the right to a fair trial. He said the government would now consider its options.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of 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."
She added: "If protecting the public is the top priority, then control orders do not achieve it."
A spokesman for Amnesty International said: "This is a welcome victory. The law lords have rightly found the control order regime – in which the accused cannot see, challenge or effectively defend themselves against the evidence – is unfair and a violation of human rights."
Muhammed Ayub, solicitor for one of the three men, known as AE, said: "We are pleased with the judgment. It's absolutely clear that evidence that is not disclosed cannot be relied upon."
The three suspects – an Iraqi, a British man and a man with dual Libyan/UK citizenship – have been held on control orders for between two and three years.
Under the system, terrorism suspects have their liberty restricted, with home curfews, electronic tagging and bans on who they can meet and where they can go.
The men are not allowed to see any of the secret intelligence assessments that form the basis of the restrictions, but they can still mount a legal challenge.
Ruling in favour of the men, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the senior law lord in the case, said: "A trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him.
"If the wider public are to have confidence in the justice system, they need to be able to see that justice is done rather than being asked to take it on trust.
"The best way of producing a fair trial is to ensure that a party to it has the fullest information of both the allegations that are made against him and the evidence relied upon in support of those allegations."
Lord Hoffman agreed with the ruling but warned: "It may well destroy the system of control orders, which is a significant part of this country's defences against terrorism."
Andrew Dismore, MP, who chairs the joint committee on human rights, said: "The laws we use to counter (the terror] threat must be compatible with human rights and the rule of law."
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "This is further evidence of the government's failure to create a proper regime to control dangerous terror suspects in the UK."
This is the second time the law lords have scrutinised control orders. In 2007, they ruled the most Draconian power under the control order regime – an 18-hour home curfew – was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
THE new legislation will also:• Introduce offences of sexual assault by penetration and of voyeurism, the latter carrying a maximum five-year jail term.
• Introduce offences targeting coercive sexual conduct such as the sending of sexually offensive e-mails or texts, and sexual exposure.
• Enable law enforcement agencies to pursue abroad anyone from Scotland who commits a sex crime under Scots law against someone under 18 – including child pornography and child prostitution offences.
• Equalise the age of consent at 16. Now, only boys who have underage sex are criminalised.
