AF, AN, AM and AE v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a groundbreaking ruling delivered by a specially convened panel of nine Law Lords, the House of Lords today held that it is unfair to impose control orders on people suspected of involvement with terrorism without telling them the basis for that suspicion. Lord Hope stated, “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." In so holding, the House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal and departed from a previous case of their own. The case has considerable implications for the control order regime and the use of secret evidence in court proceedings in the future.

Control orders generally involve up to 16 hours a-day house arrest, electronic tagging prohibition of pre-arranged meetings and prohibitions on using telephones or internet.  They are of indefinite duration.

Lord Pannick QC and Tom Hickman acted for AF the lead appellant; James Eadie QC acted for the Home Secretary; Thomas de la Mare was a special advocate for AE; Michael Fordham QC, Shaheed Fatima and Tom Richards acted for Justice, intervening