Richard Ford, Times Home Correspondent, explains why the rulings on control orders today are a huge blow for the Government, but says that it could have been worse.

"This ruling is highly embarrassing for the Government, and reflects the difficulties that ministers have had in framing laws to deal with suspects against whom there is said to be evidence of links with terrorism but not enough to bring a case in court.

"Mr Justice Sullivan has now ruled in separate cases that control orders allowing the Government to impose restrictions, short of house arrest, on suspects breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Essentially, two High Court rulings by the same judge have the potential to fatally undermine the Government’s key measure for dealing with terror suspects against whom there is insufficient evidence to bring a court case.

"He has ruled that holding individuals under a control order breaches their right to a fair trial and is incompatible the Article 5 which prevents indefinite detention without trial.

"Although the judge quashed the control orders, it does not mean that the men will no longer be subject to them.

"The men will remain on control orders as the Government is to appeal the two rulings by Mr Justice Sullivan.

"But it could be worse for the Government. Today’s decision would have carried much more weight if it had been by a different judge, as it would have meant that two judges had come to the same conclusion.

"And it will be a more damaging blow if the Appeal Court upholds Mr Justice Sullivan’s ruling."

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