and DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE
(updates down the page - latest February 1st 2010)
There seems to be some confusion on the legality of detaining foreign nationals who have been refused admission or asylum on the grounds that they have not accepted the conditions of either formality. The Law Lords have said that this is in conflict with the European Human Rights legislation which the UK has been instrumental in formulating. That there is a conflict may very well be true; but their Lordships went much further and accused the Government of bad behaviour and bad faith. This is difficult to follow in the absence of any suggestion as to how the Government should actually have acted under the circumstances in order to secure the Law Lords' approval.
I take it we can assume that the UK is not duty bound to accept as a free citizen any individual who is wanted for murder or terrorism in their country of origin and manages to set foot on British soil. If we were, the result over a period of time would be demographically and socially undesirable even if these individuals were not all dedicated to inflicting serious damage on our country. That being the case we have the choice, in the case where the country of origin is likely to inflict torture or death on the individual concerned, of flouting either the Convention on Asylum or the Human Rights legislation. There is no third way open to us unless we throw this country open to all terrorists and other criminals who choose to come here and demand the right to a trial in a British court. At such a trial, which we would be obliged to hold and finance, we would have to produce all the evidence and its sources required to convict them or set them free and give them leave to remain, and access to social security. Osama Bin Laden, should he come here, could demand such a trial. That would require the revelation of all the evidence and sources and intelligence methods used, or we would fail to convict. He would then have the right to mastermind his campaign based in London, at liberty.
From this I hope most rational people will understand that the Home Secretary will carefully note the opinion of the Law Lords that there is a conflict between the requirements of the Asylum Convention and the Human Rights Act, but the right to a trial in a British court is not given to all the citizens of other countries (of which here are several billion) except as a concession under certain conditions. These are not met in the case of those being detained. It should also be clear that arguments about internment in Northern Ireland of Irish Citizens, the effectiveness and legality thereof or the reverse, have no parallel here.
One of the lawyers who has been allowed to examine the evidence on which those detained has been refused the right to remain at liberty here has resigned, not on the grounds that he is being used to justify the current policy, but that he feels he might be being so used. Not to put too fine a point on it, it appears he may not be capable of understanding the evidence he has been given by the security services, either in its significance or perhaps its technical detail, or even its probability. I myself know from experience that governmental departments and systems can make mistakes. It is not inconceivable that an individual could have been caught in a web of intrigue and an innocent man might be being detained in Belmarsh. But I also have some knowledge of the difficulties of running a security machine that can, in a free and open society, continue effective and essential operations. The dangers and difficulties are more than might be supposed. The assumption that there is a better action and outcome, for any of the parties involved, even those detained, is not one that can safely be made by anyone.
UPDATE FEB 21st 2005
It appears that the logic of the above has been appreciated by the opposition parties, but they wish a JUDGE to be involved in the decision to detain in prison or under house arrest any individual who is not granted admission to the country but is here and refuses to leave. Now such people are not being accused - they are being refused admission on the recommendation of any or all of the following: The Home Office, The Foreign Office, MI5, MI6, Special Branch, other branches of the Police, Security and crime prevention agencies. Traditionally it has been the role of judges to preside over trials. These people are significantly not being offered a trial or threatened with a trial. They are being refused admission. I am therefore puzzled by two demands by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats:
- 1 That they should be offered, or forced, to be tried for offences already committed (the world would beat a path to our door if such a right existed!).
- 2 That a judge should be involved
if they are NOT offered, or forced into, a trial.
Nothing in the above should leave the reader in any doubt that abuses have occurred in the Immigration and Nationality Department, their procedures, their powers, appeal tribunal evidence and records etc. Nor that abuses may occur in future, I fear they will. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the government, acting on advice, must be able to refuse the access to residence and freedom of movement and communication in the UK to those it believes would be a threat to the public interest and who do not have UK citizenship.
DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE
The government may also claim that it may need to detain under house arrest some who have UK Citizenship, of whom they have evidence of hostile intention and capability, but do not have evidence to convict of crimes already committed. In the past, this has not been such a great problem as the capability of an individual for causing widespread damage had been limited. Modern technology and technological dependence/vulnerability has changed the level of risk dramatically. Logic cannot bring us to an inevitable conclusion here, it is a matter for discussion. The precautionary principle cannot be the deciding factor because the precautionary principle, if applied at the level of national management, does not allow democracy or freedom. It will be a case for collective political judgment.
UPDATE FEB 22 2005
The compromise put forward by the government, in the case of the detention on security grounds of UK citizens, is to involve the judiciary a maximum of 7 days after the detention has taken place. Judges will examine the process and judicial review is possible, and review of the controls imposed carried out within 6 months. Opponents of the proposed legislation claim that since in the past such measures have not been necessary, they are not necessary now. Lord Lloyd (if I hear the name right) was the leading proponent of this view). I am not impressed by his understanding of the 21st century or of the processes that take place on the surface of this planet, or his understanding of history. Kenneth Clarke objects because "British citizens have never been interned by executive order without trial in modern times". This is a similar argument. As a remark is of great significance. As an argument its value is diddly squat. Zero. So if this proposed law is to be opposed on rational grounds the opponents will have to do better. British citizens ain't what they used to be. We have decided to accept the fact that they do not have to be what they used to be. They do not have to be patriotic or subjects or accept the protection of the state in good grace. They can be dedicated to the overthrow of the state, the abolition of the monarchy, and opposed to the religion which has been the basis of all those laws which have brought peace and stability without repression. In the past, just over a century ago, people were hung for treason and that was a slight deterrent. Death not being a deterrent to those content to commit suicide to gain recognition in this world or the next, the ability to detain must be available. Executive orders are not the business of the Judiciary. They are nothing to do with justice. They are temporary essential powers that are required to be made official. The opponents are not concerned with the use if these powers but their abuse. They should confine their efforts to assuring there is none.
FEB 28th 2005
Two notable opinions.
- Lord Donaldson has said it is not the business of Judges to get involved with executive decisions. They are referees, to give opinions on the law and on the compliance or otherwise of individuals with it. I agree with him. They can always be called on when required, but it is vital they are not the operational branch of government.
- Barbara
Follet has said that what
was good enough in the days of Magna Carta is (therefore, she implies)
good enough for us now. I disagree. There was no damage a deranged
individual could do to the fabric of society in those days unless they
were King. That was the reason for Magna Carta. So Follet has
completely misunderstood he Magna Carta argument - it works the other
way round, just as Lord Donaldson has pointed out with the Judiciary
argument. Follet's view is based on a South African experience, wherein
no single comparison is possible amongst the elements involved.
MARCH 1st 2005
The Home Secretary has (against his better judgment) agreed to involve judges in executive detentions decisions. In an example of extreme irony, this has alerted the opposition to the fact that judges want none of it, quite rightly! The result is the opposition will back the bill providing the law expires in November, which will give them time to debate a new bill at length. However, in the meantime, a lot of rubbish has been talked in the Lords by people who through ignorance have allowed all sorts of injustice to be perpetrated over the years, suddenly concerned that these new special detention powers against a handful of suspected terrorists represent a new and fundamental threat to the liberty of citizens. In order to prevent that you need to ensure good management of the executive and the judiciary, not think you can absolve yourself by passing gradiose laws that leave the police powerless and the citizens unprotected.
We should be concentrating on stopping the abuse of those detained, and on preventing the use of torture under any circumstances, not preventing the executive arms of government from putting restraints on the freedom of those who have indicated their propensity to carry out acts of terrorism and destruction. We are so confused and in denial of the real problems that we are arguing completely at cross purposes. Latest: Tories have gone for 'sunset clause' instead of opposition to bill. They would have found the judges quite unwilling to be used as policemen or politicians. But - stop press - the PM points out that the legislation has to be reviewed annually in any event, so this sunset clause is a bit ridiculous. Looks like there is going to be no agreement. Asking judges to make up their minds in a hurry on restraint or detention is certainly ridiculous and not their role. Of course judges can be called on to examine the case of those actually detained or restrained.
MARCH 7th 2005
The speeches in the House of Lords today were dismal. Fear of Rory Bremner seemed to be uppermost in their minds. One day we hear from the comedians that non-elected people should not take vital decisions, and the next that elected people should not be allowed, only judges, Soon perhaps we shall have calls for popular election of judges. What absolute cobblers we now witness as people who have never thought anything through in their lives are called to do so in public, under pressure. The Home Secretary should have no emergency executive powers? Phrases such as 'the rule of law' are bandied about with little or no understanding of what they mean, by those who have spent a lifetime dispensing it. Godel, Escher, Bach gives perhaps some insight into how this can occur. Scientists are sometimes quite unaware of the role and wider meaning of science.
MARCH 09 2005
The debates and discussions that have taken place on March 9th, when the Government has won a temporary victory against the inclusion of a 'sunset clause' before the bill goes back to the Lords, reveal an interesting reality behind this dispute. Many members of both houses are unaware of the great difficulties our security services labour under compared to other European countries. Quite apart from the adversarial justice system (should anyone be brought to trial) which can prevent the truth from surfacing, the freedoms enjoyed by the inhabitants of these islands are of a different order to e.g. France, Germany or Switzerland. It is possible to live in the UK without any established identity or residence and to avoid the intrusion by authorities into privacy or residence. People can conceal their identity, have multiple identities and steal identities. If this relaxed situation is to remain, there has to be the possibility for the executive arm of government to detain or restrain at short notice, without proof of guilt, those it has reason to believe are a serious risk to the community. By all means allow senior members of the judiciary to examine the circumstances. But those who oppose this law have no idea of the difficulties the security services have when faced with a threat that is neither random nor disorganised, and yet has all the indetectablity of a spontaneous movement due to multiple sources and strange motivation. Countermeasures therfore depend on intelligence of considerable complexity. There are very serious abuses that occur already in our justice system, and liberty is taken away of many innocent people. Politicians have done absolutely nothing about it for years. Yet the laws they are now obstructing do not affect the thousands who have suffered from this, they concern very few people, whose cases are carefully examined. The grandstanding is total humbug, by MPs who are totally out of touch, trying to currying favour as guardians of a status quo of which they have no real knowledge.
OCTOBER 09 2005
With the return of MPs after the summer recess the debate starts again on the latest Government proposals. Various law lords warn that these run counter to the EU Human Rights provisions. Some Liberal Democrats are of the opinion that changes in the law can define new offences for which those who would be detained on suspicion of terrorism could be accused and brought to trial in the short term, wthout prejudice to later proceedings, rather than be detained without explanation. That my well be true in a few cases, but the objection to the proposed legislation which allows for a weekly or fortnightly judicial review of the justification by the security services that more time is required to gather evidence appears to be based on the contention that the judges employed for this purpose might be either incompetent, corrupt, or secretly chosen by government from amongst those who support a hardline, anti-liberal attitude. I do not find this a reasonable argument.
NOVEMBER 03 2005
At last some serious work from the opposition! For the first time it has been suggested that a change in the law to allow further interviewing by police after a suspected terrorist has been charged is on the cards. This, combined with other 'finessing' of the bill might satisfy all parties. Perhaps we can get some good work out of Parliament on this subject instead of just opposition.
NOVEMBER 07 2005
By 'finessing' in the previous paragraph I did not mean altering the 90 day detention figure. only the circumstances surrounding it. But it is now clear that for political reasons the Liberals and Tories are going to stick to their insistance that under no circumstances is 90 days admissable, in spite of the fact that this is going to apply to very few people, whose circumstances will be monitores by a high court judge. The claim that this is a fundamental attack on our human rights and liberty is not credible. The talk of a 'leap from 14 to 90 days being a leap too far' is equally fatuous. The 14 days was not practical in any sense in the current circumstances for the very few cases we are talking about. The argument that it could be a recruiting motive is equally perverse. Even if it is, that is no reason for abandoning a policy unless there is a workable alternative that those who have to work it are satisfied with, or there is a plan to recruit more, newer, better investigative staff for the security services.
STOP PRESS Nov 07 2005: 10:30pm - The PM is going for broke on the 90 days, calling the bluff of the other parties. Good.
NOVEMBER 8th 2005
A sunset clause and compensation for wrongful detention are the sort of adjustments that make sense. This should not be a party-political issue, yet the Liberals and Tories have made it one and then blame the PM's party-political response. It is not a question of 'giving the police what they want'. It is a matter of politicians giving the police what they need, in the light of all the information. It has nothing to do with Habeas Corpus or civil liberties as this concerns few cases, which will be under extreme surveillance. No detainees will have been so surveyed in the entire history of detention.
NOVEMBER 9th 2005
The 90 day bill is defeated. All those with a variety of different motives to vote against, including those upset with the police, with Blair, with the IRA being let off some hooks, with Iraq, with George Bush, with..... well almost anything except terrorists.... were always likely to outnumber those with just a cool eye on the ball. However, that's how it goes. It's not the end of the world (for most people anyway), We are told its a 'humiliation' for the PM. Can't see why. It's a defeat. For every winner, in an adversarial situation, there is a loser. The Liberals have spent a lifetime at it and the Tories have become quite expert, so are they humiliated every hour of every day? I rather think not.
Many people have confused the fact that prisons hold many innocent people with the purpose of this bill. That is something MPs should attend to that. Meantime 28 days has been accepted. The police will cope with that as well as they can.
QUESTION: What is the quickest way to get the greatest extention of the current 14 day limit on detention before being charged with a specific terrorism crime through the House of Lords?
ANSWER: By convincing the Tories and Lib Dems that 28 days good, is their idea and a great victory that their party representatives in the Lords should support.
QUESTION: How do you do that?
ANSWER: By doing the right thing and being prepared to lose.
QUESTION BEING ASKED (BUT NOT HERE): How could the PM get it so wrong?
ANSWER: I can't possibly comment.
NOVEMBER 12th 2005
An endless debate now seems to have commenced, after the vote on the bill, on the detention-without-charge issue. Those members of the public speaking most loudly in the media against the extension to 28 or 90 days are under the impression that these powers of detention are given to every policeman on the beat. But these new powers are not given to the police at all. They are given to high court judges trained over a lifetime in the law and civil liberties, empowered to look at all the facts concerning the arrest and the gathering of evidence in these special cases. So here again we have yet a further example of how the media, written and broadcast, indulge in their role as masters of ceremony of a national parliament of the misiniformed, in which they strut their stuff as champions of democracy.
APRIL 1st 2008
I have left this topic alone for over two years. The 28 days was, as the reader will have guessed, been the compromise that was settled on. According to the current Director of Public Prosecutions it is working OK, but it is hardly likely that it will be enough in the times to come if we are to give investigators a chance to deal with the complex web of evidence that surrounds the terrorism activities of the 21st century. So now it is back on the agenda, with a proposal from the Governmenet for a 42 day maximum period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects. Outlining the new plans, the Home Secretary said that the power would "only be used where there is a clear operational need related to a particular operation or investigation", and that the government approach was "significantly different from the one originally proposed",
Opponents of the bill say they have dveised alternative methods, including giving police the right to interrogate after charges have been laid, and in using lesser charges to validate detention until further evidence is unearthed. But these are merely fiddles in my view. It makes more sense to have a clear 42 day period, to have proper judicial oversight, and to give full and fair compensation for those who are found with hindsight to have been detained without good cause..The bill has passed its first reading, but there will be much opposition from the civil liberty absolutists. I do not agree with the absolutists who support eh bill either. Frank Field beiieves that if giving the police 42 days to gather evidence saves a single life, it is worth while. This argument, that if some law saves a single life it is worth it, is and always has been utter bollocks. I used to think Field had some brains but he has clearly lost them.
APRIL 30th 2008
In spite of opposition by Tories, Liberals and some Labour rebels Gordon Brown is going to press for 42 days. The head of the CPS, Sir Ken McDonald, says in his experience 28 days works well. But what does Ken McDonald know of the pressures and risks born daily by the overworked, overstretched and overstressed men and women who have to deal with the terrorist threat. Answer: bugger all, as these people get on with the job, never complain and bust their guts to do what is asked.
The 42 day period is not to be a norm, it is to be there in case it is needed in very special cases with many safeguards. It is absurd to have a 28-day limit that can never be exceeded. Those opposing 42 days say that in these cases there will be other means of holding suspects and even that questioning by police can continue after charges have been made, but there are snags to this. Brown has good reason to think that those at the coal face know more about the needs and more about the pressures and problems than Sir Ken. Too often in both the security services and the military senior officials are spared the true facts of the cutting edge of their operations until limits are reached.
JUNE 2nd 2008
The opponents of the 42 day detention option are still under the impression that Habeas Corpus is under threat and that other countries have laws that do not allow for detention beyond a week. They seem to be blissfully unaware that in all of these countries any terrorist suspect can be charged with some offence that in this country would not even be an offence, and from that moment detained indefinitely. The real charge, if the police in these countries finally get around to assembling all the evidence, can be withheld from the prisoner till the state's convenience. Those not ignorant of this are just indulging in political hypcrisy, but what the former Attorney General and the current DPP are up to is a mystery to me. These men are not idiots and the only explanation I can imagine is that nobody has thought to inform them of realities they are assumed to be familiar with, due to the seniority of their positions. It is ironic that it is the PM who is accused of being out of touch. It seems he know exactly what the position is.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the current 28-day limit was already "way out of line" with the rest of Europe.
I think Chakrabarti is sadly misinformed of what happens in the rest of Europe. Lord Carlisle, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation could enlighten her.
Mr Brown refused to be drawn on whether the issue would become a vote of confidence
Gordon Brown says he is determined to stick to his principles over plans to allow police to detain terror suspects for 42 days without charge.
The prime minister says the extension from 28-days is needed because the security services are pursuing around 2,000 terrorists and 30 plots.
But he faces opposition from about 50 Labour MPs, in addition to Lib Dems and Tories amid fears over civil liberties.
Mr Brown says he has "tried to build a consensus" and urged MPs to back him.
MPs will be voting on the proposals - part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill - next week.
Safeguards
The 42-day detention proposal has been criticised, not only by backbench Labour MPs but also the director of public prosecutions and by the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith.
It has also been criticised by the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg, it has been reported.
| |
I am determined that we stick to
our principles and that is that up to
42 days' detention is and will be necessary in the future Gordon Brown |
He has written to Mr Brown to say 42 days' detention without charge would be "excessive" and "counter-productive".
But speaking at a news conference in Downing Street to mark the visit of the Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, Mr Brown said he hoped the measure would receive the approval of Parliament.
He said the "scale and complexity" of the terrorist threat facing Britain - with security services pursing around 2,000 terrorists, 30 potential plots and 200 networks - provided compelling evidence of the need to increase the amount of time suspects could be held without charge.
He also refused to be drawn on whether defeat would mean a vote of confidence on his leadership.
"I've tried to build consensus around our proposals, but I am determined that we stick to our principles and that is that up to 42 days' detention is and will be necessary in the future," he said.
"But Parliament will make the final decision on the individual incident itself.
"And when we put forward all our proposals people will see very clearly that the civil liberties of individuals are taken fully into account."
Concessions mooted
He listed safeguards that would be made to maximise protection against "arbitrary treatment".
These included that detention beyond 28 days would be allowed only in specific circumstances. The home secretary, director of public prosecutions, the police and Parliament must sanction it.
The judiciary would oversee each individual case, and there must be
public reporting on each case, he wrote.
The home secretary is set to meet Labour MPs on Monday evening in an effort to persuade them of the merits of the proposal.
More than 50 of them have expressed concerns - a number that could spell defeat for the government when Parliament votes on the plan.
BBC correspondents say the government is likely to offer two main concessions to try to appease Labour backbenchers:
MPs could be allowed to vote after seven days - instead of after 30 days - on the home secretary's decision to grant the police the right to detain someone for up to 42 days.
'Grave emergency'
And police would only have 30 days instead of 60 days in which to use the power of detaining someone for more than 28 days, following the home secretary's decision.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show on Sunday that the law would be triggered only in a "grave terrorist emergency".
But veteran Labour MP David Winnick said there was "no evidence" for the increased detention time.
"If there was any evidence, then I would vote for an extension, but the government is not providing any evidence. What it is saying is 'it may be necessary in the future'," he said.
"It would be a poor day if on such a crucial issue Parliament did not decide on the merits of the case."
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the current 28-day limit was already "way out of line" with the rest of Europe.
She said that people all over the world were saying "please don't send this signal to other countries that it's acceptable to lock people up for longer and longer periods without charge, without knowing why it is you are locked up, without knowing what it is you're accused of".
JUNE 3rd 2008
In today's Daily Telegraph Peter Clarke, the recently retired head of Scotland Yard's counter terrorism command, explains in simple language why the 42 day emergency extension is essential. It should not need to be explained to any MP with a functioning brain, but Cameron and his pet ape Davis have problems in this direction.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/03/do0301.xml
OCTOBER 13th 2008
After a load of twaddle being talked about Magna Carta, the Lords rejected the 42 day detention clause in the anti-terrorism bill. The clause has been so mauled to satisfy those who don't understand why it is necessary or how it will be used that frankly it is better it fails. A simpler emergency act can be prepared on this matter that can be introduced at short notice when required. Once you get their lordships up on their feet defending the rights of the common man there is no reasoning with them. They will defend his/her rights to the death - to the death of him and/or her that is, probably not their lordships, though you never can tell...
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has told MPs that plans to extend terror detention to 42 days will be dropped from the Counter-Terrorism Bill.
It follows a heavy defeat for the government in the House of Lords, which threw out the plan by 309 votes to 118.
Ms Smith said instead the measure would be in a separate piece of legislation to be brought to Parliament if needed.
The Tories said she should just say she was abandoning 42 days. The Lib Dems said it was a "humiliating retreat".
The government's plan to extend the period for which police can hold terrorist suspects before charging them squeezed through the Commons in June by just nine votes.
'Biggest defeat'
On Monday, it was defeated by a majority of 191 votes in the Lords, described by the Conservative former shadow home secretary David Davis as "the biggest defeat in the Lords in living memory".
In a forceful statement to MPs less than two hours after the vote, Ms Smith said: "I deeply regret that some have been prepared to ignore the terrorist threat, for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision."
| |
The decision to prepare emergency legislation instead is merely a fig leaf which does little to disguise their defeat Nick Clegg Lib Dem leader |
She said she had prepared a new bill which would allow the director of public prosecutions to apply to the courts to question a terrorist suspect for up to 42 days "should the worst happen".
She said Britain still needed to "be prepared to deal with the worst", adding: "My priority remains the protection of the British people.
"I don't believe as some honourable members clearly do that it's enough to simply cross our fingers and hope for the best. That is not good enough."
'Political posturing'
Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said the prime minister's spin doctors had stopped Ms Smith from "saying in straightforward terms that she is abandoning 42 days".
He told Ms Smith: "You somewhat demean yourself when you, yet again, come back to this argument that those who oppose the government's measures are weak on terrorism."
He said the Conservatives were "perfectly prepared to be firm on terrorism" and pass difficult bills.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Lords reject 42-day detention plan
"But they have to be credible, they have to be based on evidence and they must not be put forward in a way that smacks of mere political posturing and gimmicks."
He questioned the need for the new bill, asking why the government could not simply use existing civil contingency powers.
Mr Davis, who resigned his seat in protest at the Commons vote on 42 days in June, described the move as a "spectacular climbdown".
Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said the government had "comprehensively lost the argument" and was now in "humiliating retreat".
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg added: "The decision to prepare emergency legislation instead is merely a fig leaf which does little to disguise their defeat."
He added: "The push for 42 days' detention was more about ministers posturing and looking tough than it ever was about fighting terrorism."
FEBRUARY 1st 2010
The government instituted a procedure of CONTROL ORDERS which has been running successfully until recently challenged in the courts on the basis that all detainees should be aware of the charges against them and the evidence for them. The government is going to hae to come up with some new legistlation or release some dangerous men.
More than a year after the last entry it is time to sum up. In the words of Lord Carlile....
Control orders used to monitor some terror suspects must not be abandoned as the move could damage UK security, a review of legislation has concluded.
Independent reviewer Lord Carlile said there were "no better means" of restricting some suspects' actions than the house arrest-like conditions.
But he said more minor suspects could have foreign travel bans instead.
The Home Secretary said control orders remained an important tool. They are currently in place against 12 people.Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8490871.stm
nnnn
.