Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP [2010] UKSC 24; [2010] WLR (D) 149

Conditions in a control order which were proportionate restrictions upon the right to private and family life could nevertheless be decisive in determining that the overall effect of the order amounted to a deprivation of liberty.

The difficulties of the controlee’s family in visiting him in a particular specified location could be taken into account when considering whether a control order constituted a deprivation of liberty.

The UK’s Supreme Court so held in allowing the appeal of AP against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Wall and Maurice Kay LJJ, Carnwath LJ dissenting) on 15 July 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 731 allowing the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of Keith J on 12 August 2008 [2008] EWHC 2001 (Admin) that the modified obligations in a control order imposed on AP pursuant to s 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 deprived him of his liberty in breach of art 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: