I need help

[AtW]

Yes, control orders just like ASBOs and other similar things are surrogates of justice designed to cut down costs: okay for low level punk crimes, but inappropriate for serious offences.

[Spacecadet]

Innocent till proven guilty IMO

Control orders shouldn't be legal as they are effectively punishing and restricting the suspects without a proper conviction. If the evidence is there then charge and convict in court, if not then let them go. There is an inherant risk but thats the price to pay in having a fair and just legal system. There are always going to be legal errors where the guilty walk free, however risks must be taken to avoid the far worse mistake of punishing the innocent.

Of course, these control orders don't effect the non muslim majority so why complain

[AtW]

So what are "control orders" then.

It is the same as ASBO - the idea is that while it is hard or impossible to convict someone of serious crime beyong reasonable doubt, an condition is slapped over the person, in effect in hope they will break it and then he gets sued for something that can be proven.

Those two guys that run away did exactly what this model requires - they went on the run, so now this will count against them big time - read: no parole or bail in the future.

[Masher]

It would appear the human rights of these dangerous escapees are so sacrosanct that we don't even get to see what they look like.

[sunnysan]

Home office site

To answer my own question, from the home office site.

• <LI minmax_bound="true">Control orders enable the authorities to impose conditions upon individuals ranging from prohibitions on access to specific items or services (such as the Internet), and restrictions on association with named individuals, to the imposition of restrictions on movement or curfews. A control order does not mean ‘house arrest’.
  <LI minmax_bound="true">Specific conditions imposed under a control order are tailored to each case to ensure effective disruption and prevention of terrorist activity.
  <LI minmax_bound="true">The Home Secretary must normally apply to the courts to impose a control order based on an assessment of the intelligence information. If the court allows the order to be made, the case will be automatically referred to the court for a judicial review of the decision.
  <LI minmax_bound="true">In emergency cases the Home Secretary may impose a provisional order which must then be reviewed by the court within seven days.
  <LI minmax_bound="true">A court may consider the case in open or closed session – depending on the nature and sensitivity of the information under consideration. Special Advocates will be used to represent the interests of the controlled individuals in closed sessions.
  <LI minmax_bound="true">Control orders will be time limited and may be imposed for a period of up to 12 months at a time. A fresh application for renewal has to be made thereafter.
  <LI minmax_bound="true">A control order and its conditions can be challenged.
  <LI minmax_bound="true">Breach of any of the obligations of the control order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence punishable with a prison sentence of up to five years and, or an unlimited fine.
  <LI minmax_bound="true">Individuals who are subject to control order provisions have the option of applying for an anonymity order.
• To date the Government has not sought to make a control order requiring derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

OK, I think I got it now. Its basically the instrument of the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act to place restrictions on an individuals activities. They make a point of saying its not house arrest, but the practical application of this law could esstentially amount to house arrest, if such extreme restriction of movement seems warrented, so I am not really sure why they bother to say that.

Maybe the home office should have it out with the Beeb because they say

"When placed under a control order, suspects can be tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057562.stm

[snaw]

The upshot of the matter is, the powers exist to detain someone if they are suspected of terrorist activity. Why control orders then? And if these guys are such a threat, why are they not locked up?

The anser to your question is in the story:


Control orders were brought in for cases where people are suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activity, but there is not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution.

[Flubster]

What's the story about exactly?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057140.stm
HTH

[snaw]

What's the story about exactly?

Slightly off context but being in a mental institution doesn't automatically follow that someone is dangerous, in fact most likely the reverse is true - they're not dangerous to others but quite likely to themselves - not related to the terrorsim bit though , not sure what you're on about.

[Flubster]

Why control orders then? And if these guys are such a threat, why are they not locked up?

Cos the law the government tried to bring in was blocked as it contravened the suspects' human rights. FFS!

In fact, the guy under 'house arrest' had his time reduced from 18 hours per day down to 14 as he felt like he was a prisoner in his own house.

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but it seems the information on at least one of the fugitives is now correct. As for the nutter, he's probably happy as larry, drinking his own p1ss.....with any luck.

[sunnysan]

Number one, I am not trying to be sarky or FOS when I ask, once again for opinions on how I should think about this?

These two guys that have escaped (One I believe from a mental institution) had "control orders" on placed on them becuase they didnt have enough evidence to charge them with anything although they are dangerous enough to detain?

Now I realise that the threat of terror is serious but I am still having trouble understanding the application of these control orders on these "suspects"?

Under the terrorism act, if someone is believed to be a threat to national security they can be detained for x number of days without charge and then AFAIK the authorities can apply for judical permission to extend the detention should they believe its warrented.

So what are "control orders" then. It sounds to me like glorified house arrest. And the guy in the mental institution was he actully diagnosed with any mental disorder? How did he end up in a mental home in the first place anyway?


The upshot of the matter is, the powers exist to detain someone if they are suspected of terrorist activity. Why control orders then? And if these guys are such a threat, why are they not locked up?