The respondent sought the quashing of a control order, on the grounds that the making of the order was flawed. An initial review by the High Court found that this order had been lawful, but reconsideration was required in light of the House of Lord’s decision in SSHD v AF (No 3)  2 AC 269, which found that increased disclosure was necessary in order for the controlled person’s ECHR, art 6 rights to be respected.
The court considered the basis on which the decision to make the control order was made, which was that the respondent had encouraged another individual to engage in terrorism, and had assisted him in travelling to Pakistan to do so. It also considered the evidence that some of the respondent’s associates were extremists.
The court analysed the evidence possessed by the applicant, and concluded that the applicant 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 there was evidence on which to conclude that the respondent had intended to travel abroad also, and that he had taken action to further this intent. None of the further disclosure or respondent statements disturbed the finding that the control order had been properly imposed based on a reasonable suspicion.
The court did find that the renewal of the control order was incorrect, but this was not the subject of the appeal. The renewed order had not impacted the respondent at this time, as he was in prison serving a sentence for criminal offences committed.
Hugh Southey QC was involved in this case.