British "control orders" on terror suspects

[Al-khiyal]

Control orders breach human rights of terror suspects, law lords rule

June 10, 2009 -- The law lords have dealt a major blow to the government's controversial use of control orders on terror suspects, saying that the use of "secret evidence" denies them a fair trial.

The nine-judge panel, led by Lord Philips of Worth Matravers, the senior law lord, upheld a challenge on behalf of three Libyans on control orders who can't be named.

The control orders against the men have not been quashed but the law lords ordered that their cases must be heard again.

The trio argued that the refusal to disclose even the "gist" of the nature of the evidence against them denies them a fair trial under the Human Rights Act.

The Home Office argued that 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 those placed on control orders in each case.

The terms of the control orders imposed on individual suspects by the home secretary include curfews at their home address of up to 16 hours, a ban on travelling abroad, all visitors to be approved by the Home Office, monitoring of all phone calls and a ban on internet and mobile phone use.

The judgment is a further blow to the government's control order regime after the law lords ruled in 2007 that 18-hour curfews were in breach of the European convention on human rights.

The home secretary, Alan Johnson, said it was an extremely disappointing judgment: "Protecting the public is my top priority and this judgment makes that task harder. 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."

He said control orders were introduced to limit the risk posed by suspected terrorists who could neither be prosecuted nor deported: "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.

"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."

[Al-khiyal]

Terror suspect freed after home secretary revokes second control order

September 24, 2009 -- The government's controversial regime of using virtual house arrest against terror suspects has suffered a fresh blow with a decision by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, to revoke a second control order rather than disclose the "secret" evidence in the case. Johnson has written to the lawyers of a former imam to the Iraqi community in Britain, known for legal reasons only as AE, telling them that he made the decision after considering the impact of a law lords ruling in June that he was obliged to disclose the detail of the allegations against him.

In previous high court rulings involving AE, the judges have said that he was an imam to the Iraqi community in an unnamed town in the north of England, who had received terrorist training and taken part in terrorist activities. They also said he had provided support for the jihadist insurgency in Iraq, and since arriving in Britain had been a leading figure in Islamist extremist circles in the town where he lived. The home secretary earlier this month insisted the control order regime remained viable despite the law lords' ruling. He has already been forced to revoke a control order against a British-Libyan man known as AF, as a direct result of the judgement.

The latest decision to revoke the control order on AE is to be implemented with immediate effect, and comes in advance of a high court hearing which was due to start on 1 October, when AE's lawyers were due to challenge the order in the light of the ruling. A Home Office spokeswoman said that the revocation of the order did not change their assessment that control orders remained the best available disruptive tool for managing the risk posed by suspected terrorists they could not prosecute or deport. She said that all the steps necessary to protect the public from terrorism would be taken in cases where they were forced to revoke a control order.

There are now 14 remaining control orders in force and the lawyers involved are expected to challenge the home secretary to disclose the "secret" evidence involved in each of them on a case-by-case basis over the next few months. Johnson said earlier this month he would be keeping his assessment that the control order regime remained viable under review as further control cases were considered by the courts this autumn. He has also asked Lord Carlile, the government's official reviewer of terrorism laws, to report back in the new year on whether the regime should continue.

The Home Office has made clear that if they disclose the details of the allegations against the terror suspects under control orders they risk disclosing sensitive security material possibly putting intelligence sources at risk. The terms of each control order varies from case to case but can include a curfew of up to 16 hours, vetting of all visitors, ban on access to the internet and mobile phone use, as well as loss of passport and monitoring of all movements. Control orders are issued under the authority of the home secretary with a review by the special immigration appeals commission. Much of the evidence in such cases is heard in closed secret session.

[Al-khiyal]

Terrorist suspects released from house arrest after peace deal

November 13, 2009 -- Four terrorism suspects have had their control orders revoked after a peace deal was struck with their al-Qaeda-linked group, it has emerged. The men have been released from house arrest as a result of the deal with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. The Home Office refuses to give a commentary on the number under control orders – currently 13 – but an update by the Home Secretary in September revealed that five individuals had their orders revoked between June and September. One of them was a Libyan known as AF and three others were dropped because they were deemed “no longer necessary.” In all 12 Libyans have been held under the control order regime since it was introduced in 2005, and only one remains subject to it. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was banned in Britain in 2005, although dozens of members had fled to the UK.

The peace deal, struck between Colonel Gaddafi’s regime and the LIFG in July, has had reverberations around the Islamic world and has now reached Britain. It has come as a major blow to al-Qaeda, which counts members of the group among its leadership and announced it had merged with the LIFG. Negotiations with members of the group began following a series of meetings in London between Gaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam al Gaddafi, then studying at the London School of Economics, and a former senior member of the group living in Britain, Noman Benotman.

As part of the agreement, the leaders of the LIFG, most of whom are in jail in Libya, have distanced themselves from al-Qaeda and condemned terrorist attacks on civilians. Their statement has also been endorsed by influential Saudi clerics, including Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Salman al-Oudah. One of al-Qaeda’s most senior leaders, Abu Yahya al-Libi, has seen his older brother sign up to the peace deal. Details of the deal, which took two years to put together, were conveyed to the Libyans under control orders in Britain by security officials because they were not allowed access to the internet.

Paul Cruickshank, an expert in al-Qaeda at New York University who has made a documentary for CNN on the peace deal, said the group had not disavowed violence against military targets in Afghanistan or Iraq but added: “In essence the new code for jihad [holy war] is exactly what the West has been waiting for – a credible challenge from within jihadist ranks to al-Qaeda’s ideology.”

Mr Benotman told the Daily Telegraph: “These men 100 per cent support the statement - they really have denounced violence. Traditionally terrorism has only one way in and no gate out. It is important that we open gates.” In their statement, the leadership of the LIFG criticised “indiscriminate bombings” and the targeting of cilivians” saying that violence “did not achieve the aims of the group in removing oppression.”

The deal is also important because it removes an important plank of support for the expanding influence of al-Qaeda in North Africa – responsible for the execution of Edwin Dwyer, a British tourist, in June. The North African branch, known as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), was formed after the merger with an Islamic group in Algeria, the GSPC, and diplomats are hoping that the new deal will weaken those links.

Much has been made of Britain’s economic links with Libya in the wake of the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, but privately security officials say the regime is playing an important role in blocking the spread of al-Qaeda. A formal 417-page religious document called Corrective studies in understanding Jihad was produced from within the Abu Salim jail in Libya in September. It echoes a statement made by Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, known as Dr Fadl, from jail in Egypt two years ago, who also condemned the worldwide jihad of al-Qaeda in another influential tract. Three men were jailed in June 2007 for providing support to the LIFG and were put under control orders after their release pending their deportation. Two of those men have now had the orders lifted.

[Al-khiyal]

Judge rules compensation can be paid to terror suspects over control orders

January 18, 2010 -- The home secretary, Alan Johnson, vowed today to fight a high court ruling that clears the way for compensation to be paid to two terror suspects whose control orders were quashed after a "secret evidence" legal battle. Mr Justice Silber formally quashed the control orders against the two suspects, known only as AE and AF, this morning in the high court. The prospect of damages being paid to international terror suspects places a new question mark against the remaining viability of the control order regime, which is already under review. The orders against the two were in force from 2006 and include restrictions such as 16-hour "house arrest" or curfew, a ban on access to internet or mobile phones, vetting of all visitors and monitoring of all movements. The judge also ruled that "in principle" the revocation of their control orders cleared the way for the two suspects to claim damages against the home secretary, but he cautioned that the amounts involved would be low.

The home secretary reacted strongly to the ruling. "I'm very disappointed by this judgment and will be appealing in the strongest possible terms," said Johnson. He said the government had argued strongly that these control orders were properly made to protect the public and that they should not be retrospectively quashed. He said the courts had previously agreed that they were both properly imposed and necessary. "We will resist strongly paying damages to former subjects of control orders wherever possible, to minimise the level of compensation where we have no choice but to pay," Johnson said.

The ruling today follows a House of Lords "secret evidence" ruling in June, that said that the home secretary had to disclose at least the "gist" of the allegations against a terror suspect against whom a control order had been made. Today's ruling means that the government may be liable to pay damages to AE and AF for interference with their human rights while they were subject to a control order. Silber made clear however that their claims for damages would not automatically succeed and depended on the merits of each claim. He added that even if they did succeed, it was not certain they would be paid compensation, which in any case would involve "low" amounts.

So far three control orders have been quashed as a result of the secret evidence disclosure ruling, leaving 12 control orders in force. In a series of high court cases over the autumn, the home secretary did make further disclosures of evidence in three of the cases to ensure the control orders remained in force. In three cases, the home secretary declined to do this and the control orders were revoked, but fresh orders with significantly reduced obligations were imposed.

The judges have described AE as an imam to the Iraqi community in an unnamed town in the north of England. He is said to have received terrorist training and taken part in terrorist activities and provided support for the jihadist insurgency in Iraq. AF lives in Manchester, has dual British-Libyan nationality and is said to have links with the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group. The former shadow home secretary, David Davis, criticised the ruling: "Whilst I believe that control orders are ill-conceived, and both draconian and ineffective in their actions, the idea that subjects should be awarded compensation is in my judgment entirely wrong," he said. "These laws were passed by parliament. It is for parliament to put them right."

[Al-khiyal]

Carlile review backs control orders for terror suspects

February 1, 2010 -- Abandoning the controversial system of control orders for terrorism suspects could damage UK security, Lord Carlile, the government's official counterterrorism watchdog, concluded today. There is "no better means of dealing with the serious and continuing risk posed by some individuals" than control orders, which place people under virtual house arrest on the basis of secret evidence, he said, while advising that less important suspects should be subject only to travel bans.

The home secretary, Alan Johnson, asked the QC and Liberal Democrat peer to look into the legislation following a series of successful legal challenges which brought predictions that the control order system could prove unworkable. Both Carlile's review, and a draft order renewing the control order powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, are being laid before parliament today. He concluded: "As the independent reviewer of terror legislation, it is my view and advice that abandoning the control orders system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security."

However, he said that they should only be used in "a small number of cases where robust information is available to the effect that the suspect individual presents a considerable risk to national security, and conventional prosecution is not realistic". Carlile also recommended that control orders against more minor suspects should be replaced by foreign travel bans. "I have considered whether control orders can or should be replaced by something else, or even renamed," he continued. "I have been unable to find, or devise, a suitable alternative for the important residue of cases that cannot be dealt with by prosecution."

Johnson welcomed the findings, calling control orders "an important tool to deal with a small number of suspected terrorists who cannot be prosecuted or deported". But the human rights organisation Liberty condemned their continued use. Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, said: "Despite enthusiastic PR from the government's paid reviewer, most people realise that control orders are both unsafe and unfair. Suspects are driven mad by endless punishment without charge but are so loosely supervised that many have disappeared. There are reams of criminal offences with which to charge terror suspects. The Home Office should stop trying to save face over this discredited policy and pass the case files to the CPS where they belong."

Control orders impose a series of restrictions on people's lives, with measures including curfews and strict conditions on who they can meet or communicate with. Critics say they are essentially like an indefinite form of house arrest. The review followed a series of legal challenges against the system, and a law lords' ruling last summer that reliance on secret evidence denied terror suspects a free trial. In several subsequent cases control orders were abandoned by the government rather than disclose the secret evidence behind them. A dozen control orders remain in force.

[Al-khiyal]

Committee urges ministers to abandon control orders

February 26, 2010 -- Ministers were today urged to abandon the use of control orders because they cost too much and have done "untold damage to the UK's international reputation as a nation which prizes the value of fairness". In a hard-hitting report, the joint committee on human rights said the control order system – which imposes severe restrictions on terror suspects who cannot be taken to court – was "no longer sustainable". The all-party committee of MPs and peers has previously criticised the way in which control orders are used. But today, for the first time, it called for the system to be scrapped and said the current regime was now "not capable of ensuring the substantial measure of procedural justice that is required". Control orders, introduced in 2005, allow the authorities to impose virtual house arrest on British and non-British terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted. They are applied in cases in which intelligence that would not be admissible in an ordinary court suggests someone is involved in terrorism and is a threat to national security. According to the latest figures, 12 control orders were in force in December, with nine relating to British citizens.

The committee said it was particularly concerned about the impact of control orders on individuals and their families. "There can be no doubt that the degree of control over the minutiae of controlees' daily lives, together with the length of time spent living under such restrictions and their apparently indefinite duration, have combined to exact a heavy price on the mental health of those subjected to control orders," it said. "We are particularly concerned about the apparent increase in resort[ing] to conditions in control orders which amount to internal exile, banishing an individual and, effectively, his family, from his and their community. We have very grave reservations about the use of such historically despotic executive orders, and the contribution they undoubtedly make to 'the folklore of injustice'."

The government claims using control orders is cheaper than putting the individuals involved under 24-hour surveillance. But officials will not reveal the cost of 24-hour surveillance, and the committee said figures now available on the cost of control orders suggested they were not value for money. The government says it spent £13 million on control orders between 2006 and 2009, £2.7 million of that on administration and the rest on legal costs. The committee said this figure was an underestimate because it did not include the cost of court hearings, adding that 24-hour surveillance could prove cheaper. "On the information currently available, we find it hard to believe that the annual cost of surveillance of the small number of individuals subject to control orders would exceed the amount currently being paid annually to lawyers in the ongoing litigation about control orders," it added.

The committee also criticised the government for ignoring previous suggestions from the committee, and from human rights bodies, that would have made the control order regime more "human rights compatible". "As a result, the continued operation of the unreformed system has, as we feared, led to more unfairness in practice, more unjustifiable interferences with people's liberty, [and] more harm to people's mental health and to the lives of their families," it said. It said the orders had also brought "even longer periods under indefinite restrictions for some individuals, more resentment in the communities affected by or in fear of control orders, more protracted litigation to which there is no end in sight, more claims for compensation, ever-mounting costs to the public purse, and untold damage to the UK's international reputation as a nation which prizes the value of fairness."

[Al-khiyal]

A friendship that crossed the threshold

February 1, 2011 -- When Lawrence Archer, a 56-year-old telecoms engineer, struck up a friendship with Mouloud Sihali five years ago, he would sit outside the Algerian' s front door, usually on an upturned dustbin, and chat for hours. With typical Algerian hospitality, Sihali, 34, would pass out drinks and snacks – but he could never invite the man he now describes as his best friend into his home, nor could he cross his own threshold to join Archer on the porch. If he had, Sihali might have rapidly found himself back in Belmarsh prison. Sihali entered the UK illegally in 1997 and was one of four Algerian defendants acquitted in the so-called "ricin plot" trial at the Old Bailey. Despite being cleared by the jury in April 2005, only a few months later he and another defendant, Mustapha Taleb, were rounded up in the wake of the London bombings on 7 July 2005 and subjected to a deportation order, with the kind of "house arrest" conditions usually associated with control orders. Both men were tagged, put under curfew for up to 20 hours a day, denied access to the internet, and only visitors approved by the Home Office were allowed to enter their homes.

Control orders were introduced in 2005 for people suspected of terrorist offences who can't be brought to a full trial and who can't be deported. Foreign nationals considered a threat to national security who can be deported, are subject to deportation orders, often with equally stringent restrictions. Last week, the coalition announced reforms to the control orders, but deportation orders will be unaffected. Archer agrees that, despite the seriousness of the situation, there was something faintly comic about his visits to Sihali. After a few months, Archer applied for Home Office clearance to become an approved visitor, which involved being designated a "known associate of terrorists". But although Sihali was cleared of being a threat to national security in 2007 and released from all restrictions, he still faces the threat of deportation back to Algeria. Archer, who has lived all his life in north-west London, describes himself as Mr Normal. He is as surprised as anyone that he has ended up best mates not just with an asylum seeker, but one accused of being the Mr Fixit in a major terror conspiracy.

If the friendship between Archer and Sihali is unusual, the way they met is even more so. Archer was the foreman of the Old Bailey jury that acquitted Sihali and Taleb. Although Archer saw Sihali in court almost every day for seven months, it was to be another year before the pair finally exchanged words, when Archer and some fellow jurors got in touch with the defendants and asked to meet. "We had read in the press about government attempts to deport them. It felt as if our verdicts were being ignored and we just wanted to show them our support," he says. "But we rapidly discovered that there is no place for jurors in the criminal justice system once a case is over." The defendants were also desperate to make contact with the jurors, following the political outcry at the acquittals. Sihali, who could have faced a 30-year sentence if the verdict had gone the other way, says: "The jury had believed in me and I felt I had a duty to reassure them that they had done the right thing, that their faith in me was not misplaced."

When the two finally met, they found they had an immediate rapport. On the face of it, the pair have little in common: Sihali is an observant Muslim who doesn't drink alcohol; Archer "went to church once or twice with the Cubs" and likes the odd beer. But for all its unlikely beginnings, what characterises their friendship now is its ordinariness. They go to the cinema and for a kebab afterwards. Archer ("an old rocker") mocks Sihali's more middle-of-the-road taste in music. Sihali attends Archer's family barbecues and helps out with DIY. When Archer went away with his wife and children for three weeks, Sihali house-sat. Before the ricin trial, Archer was almost entirely apolitical, but seeing the criminal justice system at close hand has transformed him into a vocal critic of the use of secret evidence against terror suspects. "I've become much, much more cynical about the way the government and security services operate," he says. Archer also speaks from experience. Once when he was sitting on Sihali's porch, a team of immigration officials arrived and demanded his name and address. "It was as if I'd gone from being an upstanding citizen to being suspicious. That was quite nasty."

Archer now believes that terror suspects are subject to arbitrary and pointless restrictions, motivated by a desire to break their spirits, rather than genuine concerns that they are a threat. At one of Sihali' s deportation hearings, a government official, known as Witness A, gave a factually inaccurate testimony about him. When challenged about where she had got her information, she was forced to admit she had simply put his name into Google. Since being released from all restrictions, Sihali's life has at least acquired some semblance of normality. But his fellow defendant, Taleb, has fared less well. Although the police have never questioned him since his rearrest after the London bombings, let alone formally accused him of anything, he is still subject to a deportation order while his case continues. Under curfew for 20 hours a day, he is forced to live in a provincial town, where he knows no one. "He has been dumped on a pretty rough estate, where he is virtually the only non-white person," says Archer, one of only a handful of people granted permission by the Home Office to visit. It is unclear whether the UK could be forced to change its policy of deporting people to Algeria if the civil unrest were to spread to the country from Tunisia. In the meantime, Sihali fears that his deportation case may drag on for many more years. "During a time in my life when I should have been getting married and raising a family and having a career, it feels as if I have been wasting my life," he says.