THE Government’s anti-terror laws were dealt a devastating blow yesterday when the High Court said that they were an “affront to justice” and breached human rights laws.

Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the controversial control order system, which keeps terror suspects under a form of house arrest, were “conspicuously unfair”.

The anti-terror laws denied suspects under control orders the right to a fair hearing and were incompatible with human rights laws, the judge said. Although the Government had attempted to apply a “thin veneer of legality” to the measure, suspects’ rights were determined by ministers with no effective oversight by judges, he added.

The Government was forced to bring in control orders after the law lords ruled that holding foreign terror suspects indefinitely without trial was unlawful. Ministers immediately announced that they would appeal against yesterday’s ruling. In the meantime, control orders will remain imposed on eight foreigners and four British citizens.

The ruling came in a challenge by the first British citizen to have a control order imposed on him as a terror suspect by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary. Civil liberties groups welcomed the verdict. Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: “This completely scandalous system of punishment without trial is definitely in tatters tonight.

Mr Clarke imposed the control order on the man, known only as MB, after the security services said that he was involved in terrorist activities and intended to travel to Iraq to fight against coalition forces.

He was stopped at Manchester airport last September but denied that he was planning to travel to Iraq. The man said he intended to travel to Syria for a holiday and if refused admission would go to Yemen.

In a statement made after the control order was imposed, the man denied that he was a terrorist, had ever been involved in terrorist activities or had any intention of involvement in terrorist activity.

He said in a statement to his solicitor that, as a result of being questioned by Special Branch and MI5 officers, he had missed his plane and that when he sought compensation, one officer said: “F*** off, you Paki bastard.” In his statement the man also said that when he was asked about his views on Iraq, he replied: “I don’t support the war or violence whatsover. I was not going to Iraq. I am shocked to hear the allegations that are being made.”

But MB became the first of 12 people who are subject to a control order to bring a High Court challenge.

In a two-hour ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Sullivan said that to say the Prevention of Terrorism Act did not give MB a fair hearing under human rights laws guaranteeing the right to a fair trial was an understatement.

Under the law, courts can only review the lawfulness of the decision by the Home Secretary to impose a control order and cannot look at the subject’s response.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act did not “disguise the reality” that suspects’ rights were being determined by ministers, the judge added. “The issue raised in these proceedings is whether the Act gives the respondent the fair hearing to which he is entitled. The answer to that question is no.”

The court was told that the control order required MB to surrender his passport, live at a specified address and report to the police daily. He has to give the Home Office seven days’ notice of any change of address. He must allow the police to enter his home at any time and permit them to search the house and remove items.

THE CONTROL 12

Non-UK male Imposed Mar 11, 2005. Tagging obligation removed Non-UK male Mar 11, 2005

UK male known as MB Sep 2, 2005. No tagging

Non-UK male Nov 23, 2005

Non-UK male Nov 23, 2005

Non-UK male Nov 23, 2005

Non-UK male Nov 23, 2005

Non-UK male Dec 8, 2005

Non-UK male Dec 21, 2005 True identity uncertain

UK male Feb 24, 2006

UK male Feb 24, 2006

UK male Date imposed unknown

www.timesonline.co.uk/law Read law weblog, send comments

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure