Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM

There were and remain reasonable grounds for suspecting that AM was involved in terrorism-related activity and that a control order with obligations was necessary and proportionate to protect the public. The Secretary of State's decisions were not flawed by improper delegation or ulterior purpose. Sufficient disclosure was made to ensure a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. No material relied upon was derived from torture. Certain obligations were varied to ensure proportionality, but the control order as a whole was upheld.

Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department; Defendant: AM; Defendant: AM (Special Advocates)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Review (control Order) / Final Judgment After Full Review Hearing
Outcome
Control order upheld with variations to certain obligations
Legal Topics
Control Orders, Reasonable Suspicion, Disclosure, Proportionality, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review, Delegation of Statutory Powers
National Security Human Rights Administrative Law Control Orders Reasonable Suspicion Disclosure Proportionality Article 6 ECHR +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Claimant

AM

Defendant

AM (Special Advocates)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Review (control Order) / Final Judgment After Full Review Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting AM's involvement in terrorism-related activity
  2. 2 Whether the obligations imposed by the control order were necessary and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State's decisions were flawed due to improper delegation or ulterior purpose

Ratio Decidendi

There were and remain reasonable grounds for suspecting that AM was involved in terrorism-related activity and that a control order with obligations was necessary and proportionate to protect the public. The Secretary of State's decisions were not flawed by improper delegation or ulterior purpose. Sufficient disclosure was made to ensure a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. No material relied upon was derived from torture. Certain obligations were varied to ensure proportionality, but the control order as a whole was upheld.

Court Disposition

Control order upheld with variations to certain obligations

Orders

  • Control order to continue in force
  • Curfew exception extended to 4am once every four weeks