Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG

Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG

The control order against NN is quashed as there is no continuing necessity; he has not engaged in terrorism-related activity since 2005. The control order against GG is upheld as necessary and proportionate, but the obligation to submit to personal searches is unlawful and must be removed. The prohibition on religious advice is amended for clarity. The requirement for GG to reside in Chesterfield is not justified; arrangements must be made to allow him to live with his family, subject to appropriate restrictions.

Parties
Claimant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Defendant: GG; Defendant: NN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
NN's control order quashed; GG's control order upheld with modifications.
Legal Topics
Control Orders, Prevention of Terrorism, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Proportionality, Judicial Review, Deprivation of Liberty
Public Law Human Rights National Security Control Orders Prevention of Terrorism Article 5 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Proportionality +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Claimant

GG

Defendant

NN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the renewal and modification of control orders against GG and NN are lawful and proportionate under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and compliant with Articles 5 and 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the obligations imposed, including curfew, visitor restrictions, prohibition on religious advice, and requirement to submit to personal searches, are necessary and lawful
  3. 3 Whether the move to Chesterfield and associated restrictions breach Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The control order against NN is quashed as there is no continuing necessity; he has not engaged in terrorism-related activity since 2005. The control order against GG is upheld as necessary and proportionate, but the obligation to submit to personal searches is unlawful and must be removed. The prohibition on religious advice is amended for clarity. The requirement for GG to reside in Chesterfield is not justified; arrangements must be made to allow him to live with his family, subject to appropriate restrictions.

Court Disposition

NN's control order quashed; GG's control order upheld with modifications.

Orders

  • NN's control order is quashed.
  • GG's control order is upheld.