Control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 impose curfews and travel restrictions on terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted in courts because the evidence against them has been collected by bugging the suspect or because using it could reveal intelligence sources. Interim orders, signed by the home secretary, must be referred to a judge within seven days for confirmation.

Last week the law lords dealt a major blow to the controversial use of control orders on terror suspects, a key part of the government’s battle against terrorism since the July 2005 bombings, saying that reliance on secret evidence denies them a fair trial. The nine-judge panel upheld a challenge on behalf of three men on control orders who cannot be named. The orders have not been quashed but the law lords have ordered that the cases be heard again. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the senior law lord who led the panel, said that “a trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him” While accepting that there could be conflict where national security is involved, a conflict to be resolved by government subject to the law laid down by Parliament, he added that “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. Where the evidence is documentary, he should have access to the documents. Where the evidence consists of oral testimony, then he should be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses who give that testimony, whose identities should be disclosed”. Lord Hope, in concurring, said that “if the rule of law is to mean anything, it is in cases such as these that the court must stand by principle. It must insist that the person affected be told what is alleged against him.”

As a result of this ruling up to 20 men regarded as Britain’s most dangerous terror suspects can challenge their detention. The new home secretary, Alan Johnson, said the judgment was extremely disappointing. “Protecting the public is my top priority and this judgment makes that task harder,” he said. He added that the government would continue to take all steps to manage the terrorism threat. All control orders would remain in force for the time being and he would continue to seek to uphold them in the courts, while considering this judgment and other options carefully.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the civil liberties group Liberty, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman and Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, all went on record to welcome the law lords’ decision and to demand an end to “cruel and counter-productive punishments without trial”.

The full text of the ruling in House of Lords, session 2008-09 [2009] UKHL 28 on appeal from: [2008]EWCA Civ 1148 can be found at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090610/af-1.htm