Secretary of State for the Home Department v AY

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AY

An acquittal on criminal charges does not preclude the Secretary of State from imposing a control order based on the same or similar material if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion and no realistic prospect of prosecution. The Secretary of State is not bound by prosecutorial decisions regarding evidence adduced at trial. The requirements of section 2(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 were met, and the obligations imposed by the control order were necessary and proportionate.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Respondent/appellant: AY; Respondent/appellant: AY (Special Advocates)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Control Order Review / Section 3(10) Hearing Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Outcome
Control order upheld; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Control Orders, Judicial Review, Terrorism, Standard of Proof, Abuse of Process
Public Law National Security Criminal Law Control Orders Judicial Review Terrorism Standard of Proof Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Applicant/respondent

AY

Respondent/appellant

AY (Special Advocates)

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Control Order Review / Section 3(10) Hearing Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a control order can be imposed after acquittal on criminal charges based on the same or similar evidence
  2. 2 Whether it is an abuse of process to impose a control order relying on material available but not used at trial
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 2(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 are met

Ratio Decidendi

An acquittal on criminal charges does not preclude the Secretary of State from imposing a control order based on the same or similar material if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion and no realistic prospect of prosecution. The Secretary of State is not bound by prosecutorial decisions regarding evidence adduced at trial. The requirements of section 2(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 were met, and the obligations imposed by the control order were necessary and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Control order upheld; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The control order imposed on AY is confirmed and remains in force.
  • Nothing shall be published that would tend to identify AY, pursuant to the existing anonymity order.