Control Orders: Borders to the Freedom of Movement or Moving the Borders of Freedom?



In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United Kingdom enacted several pieces of specialist anti-terror legislation. Increasingly, the focus of this legislation has shifted from a reactive approach to preventive measures designed to address an anticipatory risk. One of the most crucial issues within the current anti-terrorism strategy is what should be done with potentially dangerous people who have not yet begun to take concrete steps towards the commission of any offence. Under its Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the United Kingdom has developed a unique system, namely the so-called control orders, aiming at the prevention of the commission of terrorist acts. Individuals deemed to be involved in terrorist activities can be subjected to such control orders. The purpose of these orders, which are imposed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, is to prevent the controlled person from continuing his or her alleged initial involvement in terrorist activities. By the detailed depiction of the British control order system, and by discussing its implications for human rights, this chapter seeks to complement the general considerations regarding the balancing of liberty and security of this volume.


Civil Liberty Judicial Review Criminal Trial Fair Trial Criminal Charge 


  1. Carlile of Berriew, Lord (2008). Third Report of the Independent Reviewer pursuant to section 14 (3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, 18 February 2008.Google Scholar
  2. Elliott, M. (2006). United Kingdom: Detention Without Trial and the “War on Terror”, International Journal of Constitutional Law (IJConstL) 4, 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Feldman, D. (2008). Deprivation of Liberty in Anti-Terrorism Law, Cambridge Law Journal (CambLJ) 67, 4–8.Google Scholar
  4. Fenwick, H. (2002). The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response to 11 September? Modern Law Review (MLR) 65, 724–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fenwick, H. (2007). Civil Liberties and Human Rights. 4th ed., Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Forsyth, C. (2008). Control Orders, Conditions Precedent and Compliance with Article 6 (1), Cambridge Law Journal (CambLJ) 67, 1–4.Google Scholar
  7. Gearty, C. (2007). Civil Liberties. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  8. Grabenwarter, C. (2008). Die Europäische Menschrechtskonvention. 3rd ed., Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  9. Hickman, T. R. (2005). Between Human Rights and the Rule of Law: Indefinite Detention and Derogation Model of Constitutionalism, Modern Law Review (MLR) 68, 655–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. House of Commons (2008). Research Paper, Counter-Terrorism Bill, Bill 63 of 2007–08, Research Paper 08/2008, 26 February 2008.Google Scholar
  11. House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee (2005). The Operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Use of Special Advocates, Seventh Report of Session 2004–05, Volume 1, HC 323–1, 3 April 2005.Google Scholar
  12. Joint Committee on Human Rights (2006). Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force Sections 1 to 9) Order 2006, Twelfth Report of Session 2005–06, 14 February 2006.Google Scholar
  13. Joint Committee on Human Rights (2007). Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force Sections 1 to 9) Order 2007, Eighth Report of Session 2006–07, 28 February 2007.Google Scholar
  14. Joint Committee on Human Rights (2008). Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Ninth Report): Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2008, Tenth Report of Session 2007–08, 19 February 2008.Google Scholar
  15. Loveland, I. (2006). Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights. 4th ed., Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  16. Poole, T. (2005). Harnessing the Power of the Past? Lord Hoffmann and the Belmarsh Detainees Case, Journal of Law and Society (JLSoc) 32, 534–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Privy Councillor Review Committee, Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review: Report (2003–04 NC 100).Google Scholar
  18. Sandell, A. (2008). Liberty Fairness and the UK Control Order Cases: Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back, European Human Rights Law Review (EHRLR) 120–131.Google Scholar
  19. Sunkin, M. (2004). Grounds for Judicial Review: Illegality in the Strict Sense. In David Feldman (ed.), English Public Law. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  20. Tierney, S. (2005). Determining the State of Exception: What Role for Parliament and the Courts? Modern Law Review (MLR) 68, 668–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tomkins, A. (2002). Legislating Against Terror: the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Public Law (PL) 205–220.Google Scholar
  22. The Treasury Solicitor’s Office (2006). A Guide to the Role of Special Advocates and the Special Advocates Support Office (SASO) − Open Manual.Google Scholar
  23. Wadham, J., Mountfield, H., Edmundson, A., Gallagher, C. (2007). Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998. 4th ed., Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  24. Walker, C. (2002). Blackstone’s Guide to the Anti-Terrorism Legislation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  25. Walker, C. (2007). Keeping Control of Terrorists Without Losing Control of Constitutionalism, Stanford Law Review (StanLRev) 59, 1395–1463.Google Scholar
  26. Walker, C. (2008). Terrorism: Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 ss. 2 and 3 – Non-derogating control order – Whether “Deprivation of Liberty” Under European Convention on Human Rights Article 5, Criminal Law Review (CrimLR) 486–503.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal LawFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations