Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG [2009] EWHC 142 (Admin) (12 February 2009)

Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG [2009] EWHC 142 (Admin) (12 February 2009)

The court held that the control order against NN was no longer necessary and should be quashed, as there was insufficient evidence of ongoing risk or involvement in terrorism-related activity. For GG, the court found that the control order and its obligations, including a 16-hour curfew and relocation, were necessary and proportionate, did not breach Article 5 or Article 6 of the ECHR, and sufficient disclosure had been made to ensure a fair hearing. The appeals against the renewal and obligations of GG's control order were dismissed.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 142 (Admin)
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 Against Control Order Renewal and Obligations Under Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
NN's control order quashed; GG's control order and obligations upheld; appeals by GG dismissed.
Legal Topics
Control Orders, Terrorism Prevention, European Convention on Human Rights Article 5, European Convention on Human Rights Article 6, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Procedural Fairness
Public Law Human Rights Law National Security Law Control Orders Terrorism Prevention European Convention on Human Rights Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 Judicial Review +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Claimant

GG

Defendant

NN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Control Order Renewal and Obligations Under Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the renewal and obligations of control orders against GG and NN are lawful and proportionate under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether the control orders breach Article 5 (right to liberty) or Article 6 (right to fair trial) of the ECHR.
  3. 3 Whether sufficient disclosure was made to ensure procedural fairness under Article 6.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the control order against NN was no longer necessary and should be quashed, as there was insufficient evidence of ongoing risk or involvement in terrorism-related activity. For GG, the court found that the control order and its obligations, including a 16-hour curfew and relocation, were necessary and proportionate, did not breach Article 5 or Article 6 of the ECHR, and sufficient disclosure had been made to ensure a fair hearing. The appeals against the renewal and obligations of GG's control order were dismissed.

Court Disposition

NN's control order quashed; GG's control order and obligations upheld; appeals by GG dismissed.

Orders

  • NN's control order is quashed.
  • GG's appeals against the renewal and obligations of his control order are dismissed.