In the E case their Lordships had no difficulty in agreeing that a curfew of 12 hours a day, combined with noticeably less restrictive conditions than in the JJ case (E lives with his wife and children, who he can pick up from school, can sit in his garden and can go http://www.magliettedacalcioit.com anywhere in his 12 hours of freedom) can lawfully be imposed under a control order.
They also agreed that the Home Secretary need only consult the police about possible prosecution before making an order; she needn’t be satisfied there is no realistic prospect of a conviction. An easy case, this.
So, 12 hours curfew plus some restrictions, lawful; 18 hours plus very tight restrictions, unlawful. Jacqui Smith will I think need to tread carefully. If she wants to impose 16 hours without risk of a successful challenge, I think she needs to have relatively relaxed restrictions the rest of the time, like in E’s case. If she wants tight restrictions at all times, she probably needs to keep the curfew Cheap Jerseys down to 12 or 14 hours. And of course she’ll have difficulty getting an order upheld at all if she wants to rely solely or mainly on closed evidence.
The system’s survived; but as I said earlier today, it’s dented.
It’s not over until the fat lady sings (or whatever the politically correct term is these days).
I have briefly posted on the control orders here and linked to your 3 posts.
Whilst I think your analysis is good, I believe that you have over looked several points.
1. Those subject to control orders are innocent until proven guilty, and it calls into question if there is not sufficient evidence to charge them should they be subject to sanctions of this nature?
2. Is the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 lawful? I am aware of the view that a statute must be lawful, however, this one is so vague it beggars belief that lawyers assisted in its drafting. What I am really saying is that the courts should have the power to strike down a statute such as this.
3. JR does not provide an effective remedy under the Convention. The citizen should not have to seek permission to take the State to court, and such hearings should have a jury.
4. Is the difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty false?