The Respondent sought a quashing of the control order on the basis that the making of the order was flawed. A previous review by the High Court had found that the order was lawful, but reconsideration was required in accordance with the House of Lords’ ruling in SSHD v AF (No.3) [2010] 2 AC 269, which had held that increased disclosure was necessary in order for the controlled person’s rights under Article 6 of the ECHR to be respected.

The Court considered the basis on which the original decision was made, which was that the Respondent had encouraged another individual to engage in terrorism and assisted him in travelling to Pakistan to do so; it also considered evidence that some of the Respondent’s associates were extremists.

The Court analysed the evidence possessed by the Secretary of State, and concluded that she was reasonably entitled to suspect that the Respondent had actively encouraged another to travel for terrorism related purposes. The closed and open evidence led the Court to conclude that the Respondent had intended to travel abroad and that he had taken action to further this intent. None of the further disclosure or Respondent’s statements disturbed the finding that the order had been based on a reasonable suspicion and properly imposed.

Although the Court did find that the renewal of the order was incorrect, this was not the subject of the appeal, and the renewed order had not impacted the Respondent at this time, as he was in prison serving a sentence for criminal offences.

The full judgment is here.

Barnabas Lams acted for the Respondent, AL.