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/8132374.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Court revokes 'exile' decision Court revokes 'exile' decision
(about 4 hours later)
A decision by the government to "exile" a terror suspect from London on the basis of secret evidence must be revoked, the High Court has ruled.A decision by the government to "exile" a terror suspect from London on the basis of secret evidence must be revoked, the High Court has ruled.
A judge ruled the decision was flawed because the father of five had not been given enough information to mount a fair defence.A judge ruled the decision was flawed because the father of five had not been given enough information to mount a fair defence.
He said he had no choice but to revoke the move because of new rules governing secret evidence. But he said he had no choice but to revoke the move because of new rules governing secret evidence.
The 36-year-old suspect was moved from London to Leicester in May.The 36-year-old suspect was moved from London to Leicester in May.
Known only as BM, he is accused by the security services of being "a prominent member of a network of Islamist extremists". Known only as BM, he is accused of being "a prominent member of a network of Islamist extremists".
BM was moved to Leicester through a modification to a control order already restricting his movements.
The government said the move was necessary to stop BM associating with his extremist contacts and his removal from London was necessary to minimise the risk of him absconding.
'Bare assertion'
BM's lawyers argued at the High Court in London that his continuing "internal exile" infringed his civil right to occupy his home.
Mr Justice Mitting agreed and ruled the modification to his control order deprived BM "of a civil right for a significant period".
On the basis of the closed material, I would have decided that the decision was not flawed Mr Justice MittingOn the basis of the closed material, I would have decided that the decision was not flawed Mr Justice Mitting
He went on to say a recent House of Lords decision in another case required that a controlled person "must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him" to enable him to effectively instruct defence lawyers. The British man was moved to Leicester through a modification to a control order already restricting his movements.
The home secretary's refusal to reveal secret reports to BM meant the court was left with "a bare assertion" that there was a risk of absconding, and that assertion had to be treated by the court as "groundless". The government said the move was necessary to stop BM associating with his extremist contacts and to minimise the risk of him absconding.
But the judge said there was "closed material" - evidence heard by him in secret - that would have led to him coming to a different decision if the law had allowed him to take it into account. New rules
The House of Lords recently ruled that terror suspects subject to control orders must be given a good sense of the allegations against them.
This means the home secretary has to decide, in many of the control order cases, whether or not to put more secret intelligence material against the suspects in the public domain.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he could not make more of the case against BM public due to national security considerations.
Mr Justice Mitting said he had no choice but to revoke the move to Leicester because the suspect had not been told why he was being separated from his family.
But he said there was "closed material" - evidence heard by him in secret - that would have led him to a different decision if the law had allowed him to take it into account.
"On the basis of the closed material, I would have decided that the decision was not flawed and would have upheld the modification, notwithstanding its significant and highly adverse impact upon BM's family, in particular upon his children," he said."On the basis of the closed material, I would have decided that the decision was not flawed and would have upheld the modification, notwithstanding its significant and highly adverse impact upon BM's family, in particular upon his children," he said.
'Civil right'
BM's lawyers argued at the High Court in London that his continuing "internal exile" infringed his civil right to occupy his home.
Mr Justice Mitting agreed and ruled the modification to his control order deprived BM "of a civil right for a significant period".
The judge gave the home secretary seven days to revoke the order and return BM to his home.The judge gave the home secretary seven days to revoke the order and return BM to his home.
Government lawyers are considering whether to mount an urgent appeal.Government lawyers are considering whether to mount an urgent appeal.
The judge refused leave to appeal but the Home Secretary can still ask the Appeal Court to hear the case. The judge refused leave to appeal but the home secretary can still ask the Appeal Court to hear the case.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: "As if house arrest forever without charge wasn't bad enough, now control orders have an extra layer of cruelty - internal exile.
"Once more the courts have stood up for common decency while Parliament lags behind."