Tonight:
4°c
A government decision to “exile” a terrorism suspect from London on the basis of secret evidence must be revoked, the High Court ruled today.
A judge said the decision was flawed because the father of five, identified only as BM, had not been given enough information to instruct lawyers to challenge his exile.
However, the judge said he would have upheld the move if the law had allowed him to rely on evidence kept from the suspect. BM, 36, is accused by the security services of being “a prominent member of a network of Islamist extremists”.
He was forced, through a modification to a control order already restricting his movements, to move out of east London to a flat in Leicester.
The Government said the move was necessary to stop BM associating with extremists “with a view to engaging in terrorist-related activity” and there was a risk of him absconding.
BM's lawyers argued at the High Court that his continuing “internal exile”, imposed in May, infringed his civil right to occupy his home. Today Mr Justice Mitting ruled the modification deprived BM “of a civil right for a significant period”.
The judge said the Home Secretary had attempted to justify interfering with that right by arguing there was a risk of BM absconding. But the Home Secretary's refusal to reveal secret reports to BM meant the court was left with “a bare assertion” about the danger of absconding, and that had to be treated by the court as “groundless”.
But the judge said there was “closed material” — evidence heard by him in secret — that would have led to him coming to a different decision if the law allowed him.
He said: “On the basis of the closed material... I would have upheld the modification, notwithstanding its highly adverse impact upon BM's family.”
The judge gave Home Secretary Alan Johnson seven days to revoke the order and return BM to his home. Government lawyers are considering whether to appeal.
Reader views (4)
Why does someone like him have more rights than me ?
- Joe, Swanley Kent, 03/07/2009 16:20
Report abuse
So he IS guilty and should be deported, but yet again the Law is shown to be an ass.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 03/07/2009 16:02
Report abuse
No doubt the flat in Leicester is tax-payer funded, and I bet we're keeping his whole tribe in East London.
- Ab, London, 03/07/2009 15:57
Report abuse
Father of five.Good grief.
- Steve, London, 03/07/2009 15:41
Report abuse
