The High Court in England has ruled in CA v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2278 that a control order which required the "controlee" to relocate and live away from his family was unlawful and breached his human rights under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In his judgment Mitting J upheld an appeal against a change to the original control order, which effected the relocation of the controlee to Ipswich. He ruled that the Appellant be allowed to return to Crawley - where his family live - subject to strict conditions laid down by the Secretary of State.
This judgment is the latest in a series of court rulings relating to this controversial scheme. The matter hinged on the question of proportionality. Mitting J accepted the existence of the risk posed by the Appellant; however, he concluded that relocation to Ipswich would exacerbate this risk while a return to his family would mitigate it. UK Justice Secretary Ken Clarke recently indicated that following the Government's review of counter-terrorism legislation, the use of control orders would continue.