Paper short abstract:

not used

Paper long abstract:

Little has been written about how the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005) works with respect to individuals who are suspected – but not charged – with committing terrorist-related activities. Such persons are indefinitely detained under ‘control orders’, a form of internal exile. This paper looks at the case of one such person.

Initially detained in late December 2006 ‘AP’ was released in July 2007 only to be placed under a control order in January 2008. In July 2008 his appeal against the Secretary of State came before the High Court and was refused. His subsequent appeal against the High Courts decision was largely refused. He therefore remains subject to a control order. I analyze the court proceedings to illustrate how the Prevention of Terrorism Act – with its reliance on a low standard of proof, trial without jury, admission of hear say evidence and reliance on Special Advocates – played out in AP’s appeal. I conclude that the Act makes it impossible to defend individuals detained under control orders and that it is corrosive of civil liberties.