Q&A: Control orders

By Dominic Casciani
BBC News

What are control orders and what part do they play in British anti-terrorism legislation?

What are control orders?

The orders were introduced under 2005 anti-terrorism legislation. Ministers can place terrorism suspects under close supervision that some say falls little short of house arrest.

Why were the orders introduced?

The orders came into force in March 2005 in an emergency measure. The Law Lords had declared the previous policy of detaining foreign terrorism suspects without trial was incompatible with human rights.

The government said the detainees were a threat - but they could not prosecute because of rules covering secret intelligence.

The new system was designed to allow the Home Secretary to restrict the liberty of both foreigners and British citizens in cases where ministers said a trial was not possible.

What is the practical effect of a control order?

The home secretary has the power to make two different types of control order.

KEY CONTROLEE RESTRICTIONS Electronic tagging No passport Live at one address Curfews Restrictions on visitors No internet Attend only one mosque Daily reporting to the police Daily monitoring by phone 22 restrictions in total used to date

The first type lasts for 12 months and includes strict conditions such as home curfews. The order is subject to some scrutiny before the courts.

The other form, which has never been used, would involve opting-out of some human rights law. These orders could only last six months and the power is designed to severely restrict the movements of an individual in a public emergency situation.

If it is served, ministers must bring it before both houses of Parliament for a debate within 40 days of being served.

How many people are currently on control orders?

According to the latest figures, there are 14 control orders in force and eight of them affect British citizens. Three of these people are on the run.

In all, seven people have absconded while under the regime - although four are no longer counted in figures because the order lapsed after they disappeared.

Some 30 control orders have been issued since the start of the regime, but it is unclear how many of these may have been annual renewals.

What do we know about those who have absconded?

Zeeshan Siddiqui, a 25-year-old British national escaped in September 2006 from a mental health unit. The BBC won a legal battle to name him and publish his diaries.

ZEESHAN SIDDIQUI I just can't imagine how other Muslims ... go about their daily lives as normal, rejecting the strife of the battlefield - Islam needs those who are prepared to fight to the death Zeeshan Siddiqui Read Zeeshan's diaries

A month earlier, an Iraqi known as LL disappeared. The BBC was able to name him as Bestun Salim after legal challenge.

In January, another British man absconded after being served with a control order. According to the Home Office, he was "not believed to represent a direct threat to the public in the UK".

Lamine Adam, 26, his brother, Ibrahim, 20, went missing on 21 May. The Adams's brother, Anthony Garcia, was jailed for life last month for his part in the fertiliser bomb plot.

A further man who absconded alongside the brothers won his case in the courts and is now a free man, saying he was never a threat.

Finally, an Iraqi man who subjected to a control order since November 2005 went missing on 18 June 2007.

Has the law been challenged?

On 31 October 2007 the Law Lords issued three important judgements on the future of the regime.

THE KEY CASES MB: British man in South Yorkshire JJ and others: Iraqis AF: UK/Libyan E: Tunisian Key cases profiled

These rulings covered nine of the controllees, two of whom are absconders.

The Law Lords said that the system was legal - but they criticised some key aspects.

They said the courts should reconsider two of the cases because of the way in which secret evidence had been used.

At the same time, they rejected claims that control orders represented a criminal punishment that had been unfairly imposed because the men had not had their day in court.

On six of the cases, a majority of the Law Lords ruled out 18-hour curfews, saying they breached rights to liberty.

One Law Lord however has told the home secretary that 16-hour curfews may be permissible.

Are the government's defeats important?

Lawyers for the controllee who won say that judges will now have to look much more closely at the use of secret evidence in all cases.

But the judges' rulings have wider significance than the technicalities.

These cases covered two fundamental areas of human rights law in terrorism cases - fair trial and liberty.

But in neither area have the Law Lords said the regime is entirely incompatible with human rights obligations.

What does the government say about control orders?

The Home Office says control orders are "essential" where it is not possible to prosecute individuals or, in the case of foreign nationals, deport them.

However, it also says that they are not ideal and were only introduced as a "next best alternative" because other measures would not meet human rights obligations.

More widely, the coming months will see fresh Parliamentary debates on counter-terrorism measures as the government is seeking a consensus on potentially tougher measures.

What do critics say?

Civil liberties groups and some Muslim campaign organisations are among the most fierce critics, saying control orders are a blunt and draconian tool. They argue that if someone poses such a threat to society, they should be brought before the courts.

The key element in this debate is the admissibility of phone-tap evidence in the courts. The security services do not want phone-tap evidence to be heard in court.