The Government was this morning ordered to partially rethink its controversial control order regime that restricts the activities of terror suspects.

Britain’s most senior judges in the House of Lords ruled that the most draconian power - an 18-hour home curfew - was in breach of the human right to liberty. But they said that a 12-hour curfew was acceptable.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, announced that she was looking at introducing 16-hour curfews instead.

“I am disappointed that they have found against control orders containing 18-hour curfews which I feel was required to protect national security," she said.

Expert View

Control orders will remain part of the measures for dealing with terrorist suspects but there are indications emerging of other tactics

Richard Ford

• More

• Post a comment

Related Links

• Row over suicide bomber TV drama

• Terror alert on freed UK suspects

• Seventh control order suspect absconds

“I believe that today’s ruling could allow us to impose curfews of up to 16 hours, which I will now consider.”

Ms Smith added: “I am also pleased that the Lords did not find that the review process in these cases had been unfair.

“I feel strongly that the protections already in place safeguard the rights of these individuals while balancing the need to protect national security.

“It will now be for the High Court to review these cases and I hope that they will find the procedures to have been fair."

Liberty, the Human rights group, called the decision a “significant blow” to the controversial measures. But the group's director Shami Chakrabarti accepted that it “stopped short of outlawing the controversial policy altogether.”

“These decisions will cause few celebrations at Liberty or the Home Office, and fully satisfy neither fairness nor security,” she added.

Indefinite control orders, imposed on terrorist suspects by the Home Secretary, are one of the Government’s key anti-terror measures. Restrictions can include home curfews and bans on internet access and unauthorised visitors.

The orders were introduced two years ago after the House of Lords held that the existing system for dealing with suspects - indefinite detention without charge -breached their human rights.

The cases considered by the Law Lords involved 10 terror suspects being placed under orders, including at least two who are on the run.

In the High Court and the Court of Appeal they successfully argued that the measures violated their right to liberty and a fair trial.

Ms Chakrabarti said: “The authorities have rightly lost their most draconian 18-hour curfews without trial.

“Whilst that is a body blow to Blairite policy, it is now left to the [European Court of Human Rights] in Strasbourg or Westminster Parliament to restore the age-old right to a fair trial.”

Eric Metcalfe, the director of human rights policy of Justice, another human rights organisation, said: “The rulings are a victory for fairness over secrecy, and liberty over suspicion.

“Nobody can receive a fair hearing without knowing the evidence against him. If we allow the fight against terrorism to trample upon basic principles of justice then we destroy the very values we fight for.”

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said that the Government had been warned about the potential for legal difficulties with the control order system.

“Two years ago, we warned the Government in terms that the control order regime they rushed through was a ’recipe for further legal challenges’," he said.

“They failed to heed that warning and today’s judgment is the unfortunate, but predictable, consequence.

“However, we recognise the difficult predicament facing the Government. It must now undertake an overall review of the handling of the control order regime."

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers