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/6665775.stm

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

Version 0 Version 1
Order on terror suspect restored Order on terror suspect restored
(about 10 hours later)
A control order imposed on a terror suspect by Home Secretary John Reid which was overturned in the courts has been restored by judges.A control order imposed on a terror suspect by Home Secretary John Reid which was overturned in the courts has been restored by judges.
The Court of Appeal reversed an earlier ruling that limiting the movements of the suspect - known as "E" - contravened his human rights.The Court of Appeal reversed an earlier ruling that limiting the movements of the suspect - known as "E" - contravened his human rights.
After the latest decision, Mr Reid said: "This judgment means that I can better protect the public." After the latest decision, Mr Reid said: "This judgement means that I can better protect the public."
But the case is now likely to be settled in the House of Lords.But the case is now likely to be settled in the House of Lords.
'Realistic possibility''Realistic possibility'
The control order was originally imposed on E because the security services believed he was a facilitator and recruiter for an al-Qaeda-linked organisation, the Tunisian Fighting Group.The control order was originally imposed on E because the security services believed he was a facilitator and recruiter for an al-Qaeda-linked organisation, the Tunisian Fighting Group.
The Court of Appeal has endorsed our view John ReidHome SecretaryThe Court of Appeal has endorsed our view John ReidHome Secretary
In February, Mr Justice Beatson at the High Court ruled that the order unlawfully deprived E of his liberty, in contravention of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).In February, Mr Justice Beatson at the High Court ruled that the order unlawfully deprived E of his liberty, in contravention of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
He also cited a failure to prosecute E in light of judgements from a Belgian court.He also cited a failure to prosecute E in light of judgements from a Belgian court.
But in the Court of Appeal, Lords Justices Pill, Wall and Maurice Kay overturned the February judgement.But in the Court of Appeal, Lords Justices Pill, Wall and Maurice Kay overturned the February judgement.
They said: "We consider it was wrong to describe the Belgian court judgments as evidence giving rise to a realistic possibility of prosecution."They said: "We consider it was wrong to describe the Belgian court judgments as evidence giving rise to a realistic possibility of prosecution."
After the latest ruling, Mr Reid said: "The Court of Appeal has endorsed our view that the obligations in that order did not constitute a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR.After the latest ruling, Mr Reid said: "The Court of Appeal has endorsed our view that the obligations in that order did not constitute a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR.
"I am pleased too that the court accepted that the possibility of prosecution not being kept properly under review would not justify quashing the order in this case.""I am pleased too that the court accepted that the possibility of prosecution not being kept properly under review would not justify quashing the order in this case."
Now the order has been restored, E is required to stay at an address between the hours of 0700 and 1900.Now the order has been restored, E is required to stay at an address between the hours of 0700 and 1900.
He is not allowed to see unauthorised visitors at the address, have a mobile phone or use the internet.He is not allowed to see unauthorised visitors at the address, have a mobile phone or use the internet.