This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/8465418.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Terror control order men to sue Terror control order men to sue
(about 3 hours later)
The High Court has ruled that two former terrorism suspects can sue the government for damages.The High Court has ruled that two former terrorism suspects can sue the government for damages.
The two men, known as AE and AF, last year challenged control orders restricting their liberty.The two men, known as AE and AF, last year challenged control orders restricting their liberty.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson abandoned the orders against the men after being told he had to reveal more detail of the secret cases against them.Home Secretary Alan Johnson abandoned the orders against the men after being told he had to reveal more detail of the secret cases against them.
Mr Justice Silber ruled on Monday that the men could sue - but there was no guarantee that they would succeed. He said he was "very disappointed" at the decision to let the men sue and said the government would appeal.
AF is a joint UK-Libyan national who lives in north-west England and AE is an Iraqi Kurd Imam. Both men have been accused of links to foreign jihadist organisations - an allegation they both denied. AF is a joint UK-Libyan national who was born in Derby and now lives in north-west England and AE is an Iraqi Kurd imam. Both men have been accused of links to foreign jihadist organisations - an allegation they both denied.
They were both initially subjected to 18-hour curfews and other restrictions, including who they were allowed to contact.They were both initially subjected to 18-hour curfews and other restrictions, including who they were allowed to contact.
LIVING ON A CONTROL ORDER Where's the evidence? It's all closed material, I can't defend myself, I'm in the dark, I'm in this nightmare Controlee AE, speaking to the BBC, June 2009 'Nightmare' of control order lifeLIVING ON A CONTROL ORDER Where's the evidence? It's all closed material, I can't defend myself, I'm in the dark, I'm in this nightmare Controlee AE, speaking to the BBC, June 2009 'Nightmare' of control order life
But last year the Law Lords ruled that people with control orders like them should be allowed to see more of their case against them in the interests of a fair hearing. But last year the Law Lords ruled that people who are made the subject of control orders should be allowed to see more of the case against them, in the interests of a fair hearing.
On Monday, Mr Justice Silber formally quashed the control orders that date back to 2006 - paving the way for the men to sue. The government chose to revoke the orders, rather than reveal details of each case.
While he ordered the Home Secretary to pay costs, the judge also warned the men that any eventual compensation payments probably would be low. Lawyers for Mr Johnson then argued that neither man should be entitled to seek damages because the control orders had been revoked instead of declared unlawful by the courts.
Lawyers for Mr Johnson argued that neither man should be entitled to seek damages because the control orders had been revoked instead of declared unlawful by the courts. However, on Monday, Mr Justice Silber formally quashed the control orders dating back to 2006 - paving the way for the men to sue - and ordered the home secretary to pay costs.
But Mr Justice Silber said: "In my view, the reason why the control orders have been revoked has been the decision of the Secretary of State not to disclose further material because he could not comply with the requirements [for a fair trial]. He said: "The reason why the control orders have been revoked has been the decision of the secretary of state not to disclose further material because he could not comply with the requirements [for a fair trial].
AE'S RESTRICTIONS 12-hour curfew, electronic tagLimits on where he can goBanned from meeting a list of named individualsBanned from meeting other people without permissionBanned from using mobilesBanned from leading prayersRequired to regularly report to monitoring authority Terror suspects win legal battleAE'S RESTRICTIONS 12-hour curfew, electronic tagLimits on where he can goBanned from meeting a list of named individualsBanned from meeting other people without permissionBanned from using mobilesBanned from leading prayersRequired to regularly report to monitoring authority Terror suspects win legal battle
"Indeed, if the Secretary of State had not revoked the control orders on the controlees, the position would in my view have been that the Secretary of State would have refused to give disclosure to the controlees. "Indeed, if the secretary of state had not revoked the control orders on the controlees, the position would in my view have been that the secretary of state would have refused to give disclosure to the controlees.
"Without that evidence, the Secretary of State would have had no case for imposing or renewing control orders, which would then have been quashed." "Without that evidence, the secretary of state would have had no case for imposing or renewing control orders, which would then have been quashed."
But he added: "Although the controlees have been successful on all issues, they must appreciate that this means neither that they will therefore automatically succeed [if they sue], nor that even if they did, that they would recover any damages." However, the judge said the controlees would not automatically succeed - or necessarily be paid damages - if they did decide to sue.
Afterwards, Mr Johnson said: "I'm very disappointed by this judgment and will be appealing in the strongest possible terms."
He said the orders were designed to protect the public.
"We will resist strongly paying damages to former subjects of control orders wherever possible, and to minimise the level of compensation where we have no choice but to pay," he added.
Mohammed Ayub, of Chambers solicitors, Bradford, who was acting for AE, described the ruling as a landmark decision and a "very important step in AE's claim for damages".
"It is victory for common sense and decency," he said.