Appendix 2: Letter dated 18 February
2008 from the Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP, Home Secretary, Home Office
Thank you for your letter dated 7 February 2008 relating
to the annual renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
Your letter raised a number of questions which, where
appropriate, have been answered in Lord Carlile's report. However,
in view of the imminence of the debate I am responding to all
your queries.
1. Have you received Lord Carlile's annual report
on the operation of the control order legislation?
- If not, please indicate
when you expect to receive it and confirm that you will lay it
before Parliament as soon as you receive it.
- If you have received it, please indicate the
precise date on which you received it and confirm that you will
immediately lay it before Parliament.
Lord Carlile's annual report was laid before Parliament
today (Monday 18 February). It was received by the Home Office
during Recess and published on the first sitting day afterwards.
2. Please provide a breakdown, in relation to
each of the 14 individuals currently subject to control orders,
showing for how long each individual has been subject to a control
order.
There are currently 15 individuals subject to control
orders. The dates shown below reflect when these individuals were
first served with a control order (since that point their original
control order may have been renewed, quashed and/or revoked and
replaced with a new one).
- Two individuals
were served with control orders in March 2005.
- One individual
was served with a control order in September 2005.
- One individual
was served with a control order in November 2005.
- One individual
was served with a control order in December 2005.
- Two individuals
were served with control orders in February 2006.
- One individual
was served with a control order in June 2006.
- One individual
was served with a control order in July 2006.
- One individual
was served with a control order in August 2006.
- One individual
was served with control order in September 2006.
- One individual
was served with a control order in December 2006.
- One individual
was served with a control order in June 2007.
- One individual
was served with a control order in July 2007.
- One individual
was served with a control order in January 2008.
3. What independent psychiatric evidence have
you sought about the psychological impact on individuals who are
indefinitely the subject of a control order?
Although it is possible to renew non-derogating control
orders 12 months after they were originally made, it is not -
nor has it ever been - the case that individuals are indefinitely
subject to control orders. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
only allows for control orders to be renewed where 'necessary,
for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from
a risk of terrorism' and for purposes connected with preventing
or restricting involvement by that person in terrorism-related
activity' (section 2(6)).
The Home Office does, where appropriate, actively
seek information from the individual about the impact of the control
order on their physical and mental health. Whilst it would not
be appropriate to discuss individual cases, I can confirm that
in a number of cases we have commissioned independent medical
evidence on a controlled individual, including on their mental
health. This evidence, and any provided by the controlled person,
is taken into account when assessing the necessity and proportionality
of the control order and its obligations.
4. Following the House of Lords judgment in JJ
have you modified any control orders to increase the curfew to
16 hours and, if so, in how many cases?
I believe that the House of Lords judgment on control
orders allows us to impose curfews of up to 16 hours where it
is necessary and proportionate to do so. Following the House of
Lords judgment, I assessed that it was necessary and proportionate
to modify four control orders such that the curfews were increased
to 16 hours.
In addition, subsequent to the hand down of the Lords
judgment, a control order that includes a 16 hour curfew has been
served on another individual.
5. How many of the 14 control orders in force
have been imposed on the ground that you consider it necessary
to protect members of the public in another country from a risk
of terrorism?
It would not be appropriate to comment on the national
security cases of the individual cases of the 15 individuals currently
subject to control orders.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 states that
"'terrorism" has the same meaning as in the Terrorism
Act 2000. This definition, in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000,
extends to actions outside the UK as well as the protection of
the Government and public of countries other than the UK. The
UK Government works to protect both its citizens and foreign nationals,
wherever they may be, from the threat of terrorism. Control orders
are an essential part of our toolkit to protect the public from
the risk of terrorism.
6. Please provide detailed information about prosecutions,
successful or otherwise, for breach of a control order since the
last annual renewal.
In June 2007 one individual was charged with contravening
his control order obligations. In December 2007, this individual
was found not guilty of breach of control order obligations relating
to the residency requirement and reporting to the police.
There are three further individuals who since January
2007 have been charged with counts of breaching their control
order and whose prosecutions are ongoing.
- In May 2007
one individual was charged with contravening his control order
relating to occasions of absences during his curfew.
- In September
2007 one individual was charged with contravening his control
order obligations and conspiracy to contravene his control order
obligations.
- In September
2007 a further individual was charged with breach of control order
obligations including purchasing and keeping a mobile phone, failing
to call the monitoring company, and failing to inform the Secretary
of State of his interest in a bank account.
7. How many control orders are in force in respect
of individuals who have absconded and cannot be traced?
Two individuals currently subject to control orders
have absconded.
8. Do you intend to appeal against the quashing
of the control order in respect of Cerie Bullivant by the High
Court on 29 January 2008?
The Government is disappointed that Mr Justice Collins
has indicated that he is not persuaded that Cerie Bullivant's
current control order should be maintained and we await his judgement
on Mr Bullivant's initial control order. Mr Justice Collins said
he was convinced that "subjectively the decision by the Secretary
of State to make and maintain the original order was entirely
reasonable and honestly held". The Government is considering
whether to appeal the High Court's decision.
9. How do you ensure that you comply with your
duty to keep the decision to impose a control order under review?
The Home Office continues to hold Control Order Review
Groups ("CORGs") on a quarterly basis. The purpose of
the group is to keep the obligations, and their impact both individually
and cumulatively, under regular review and to facilitate a review
of appropriate exit strategies. In addition, ad hoc meetings to
review the necessity and proportionality of control orders and
their constituent obligations take place when needed.
10. We would be grateful if you could provide
us with more information about exactly what questions the CORGs
consider. In particular:
The terms of reference of the CORG are as follows:
The purpose of the Group is:
1. To bring together the departments and agencies
involved in making, maintaining and monitoring control orders
on a quarterly basis to keep all orders under frequent, formal
and audited review.
2. To ensure that the control order itself
remains necessary as well as ensuring that the obligations in
each control order are necessary and proportionate. This includes
consideration of whether the obligations as a whole and individually:
a. Are effectively disrupting the terrorism-related
behaviours of and risk posed by the individual?
b. Are still necessary to manage the risk?
c. Need to be amended or added to in order
to address new or emerging risks?
3. To monitor the impact of the control order
on the individual, including on their mental health and physical
well-being, as well as the impact on the individual's family and
consider whether the obligations as a whole and/ or individually
require modification as a result.
4. To keep the prospect of prosecution under
review, including for breach of the order.
5. To consider whether there are other options
for managing or reducing the risk posed by individuals subject
to control orders.
- Do the CORGs review whether
there continue to be reasonable grounds for suspecting that the
individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity,
and whether a control order continues to be necessary at all?
Yes. The CORG reviews whether there are still reasonable
grounds for suspecting that the individuals is or has been involved
in terrorism-related activity. The CORG also reviews whether the
obligations within the control order, individually and cumulatively,
continue to be necessary and proportionate to manage that risk.
- At meetings of the CORGs
does the Home Office inquire into whether there is active investigation
of the individual by the law enforcement agencies with a view
to prosecution?
Yes. At each CORG the current prospects of prosecution
for terrorism-related offences are discussed and recorded. Consideration
of prosecution is given by the relevant law enforcement agencies
when appropriate, for example, when new evidence comes to light.
11. Please indicate, in general terms and without
reference to individual cases, what sorts of "exit strategies"
you are considering in relation to individuals who have been the
subject of control orders for more than a year.
Exit strategies are considered for all individuals
subject to control orders. This is done on a formal basis quarterly
at the CORG.
The formal Government response (published in July
2007) to the second Annual Report of the Independent Reviewer
included the main currently available potential exit strategies.
These were:
- Prosecution.
The prospect of prosecution is kept under review by the police
in all cases.
- Deportation.
Nine individuals previously subject to control orders have been
served with a notice of deportation and their control orders revoked,
of whom six have been deported.
- Modify the
obligations in a control order: Both control orders and individual
obligations are kept under regular review to ensure they remain
necessary and proportionate to protect the public from a risk
of terrorism; it follows, therefore, that obligations may be reduced
or removed as a result of these reviews (conversely, obligations
could be increased, if that were necessary).
- Non-renewal
or revocation of a control order, if the Secretary of State concludes
that a control order is no longer necessary to protect the public
from a risk of terrorism. Over the last year, two control orders
have not been renewed and one control order has been revoked.
The Government believes it is important to consider
whether de-radicalisation and rehabilitation programmes could
be deployed to help individuals subject to a control order. Such
initiatives would form another potential exit strategy, though
consideration would need to be given - as part of the CORG process
- to the appropriateness of such action in relation to each individual.
12. How many individuals who have been made the
subject of a control order have subsequently been prosecuted for
a terrorism-related offence, other than for breach of the control
order?
Control orders seek to disrupt terrorist activity.
To date, no such prosecutions have been put before the court.
18 February 2008
