Suspected terrorists can sue Minister

Two terror suspects won a High Court ruling yesterday that paves the way for the first compensation claims against the Home Secretary relating to control orders.

The two men, AF and AE, say the orders made against them were unlawful and they were entitled to damages for human rights violations.

Yesterday a judge formally quashed all the orders and opened the way for the men to claim damages for a period dating back to 2006 when the first orders restricting their movements were imposed.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But Mr Justice Silber, sitting at London's High Court, cautioned that the ruling did not automatically mean they would succeed on all their liability claims against the Home Secretary.

He added that the level of compensation payable was"low".

Both men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, won a key battle in the House of Lords last June over the use of secret intelligence evidence to impose and maintain control orders.

From the outset, the control order system has been controversial. Orders are imposed "for public protection" if people suspected of being involved in terrorism cannot be put on trial because of the danger of compromising intelligence sources.

But nine Law Lords ruled it was unfair that individuals should be kept in ignorance of the case against them.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

AF was born in 1981 in Derby and has dual Libyan and British nationality. He was subjected to control orders because of alleged links with Islamic terrorists.

Judges have described AE as an imam to the Iraqi community in an unnamed town in the north of England.

It was alleged by the security service there was evidence that he had received terrorist training and taken part in terrorist activities.

He had also provided support for the jihadist insurgency in Iraq and, since arriving in Britain, had been a leading figure in Islamist extremist circles.

Mohammed Ayub, of Chambers solicitors, Bradford, who was acting for AE, described yesterday's ruling as a landmark decision and a "very important step in AE's claim for damages".