AF v HOME SECRETARY

AF v HOME SECRETARY

Last Updated: 2:29am BST 13/09/2007

Queen's Bench Division (Admin)
Goldring J
August 17, 2007

Control orders - Modification - Restrictions - Terrorism - Change in circumstances - Curfews - Restrictions on communication - Restrictions on place of worship - Geographical restrictions - Travel restrictions - Security risks

FACTS

The appellant (F) appealed against the refusal of the respondent secretary of state to modify a non-derogating control order made against him pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 s. 2. The order imposed electronic tagging, a curfew between 19.00 and 07.00, restrictions as to place of worship, communications and travel. The order also restricted F to a certain geographical area when he was out of his residence. F, who received incapacity benefit, had applied to modify the order on the basis that there had been a change of circumstances. In view of the change in prayer timetable of one of the two mosques he had been permitted to attend, he sought a reduction in the curfew period from 12 hours to 9 hours.

F also sought to modify the curfew times to improve his prospect of employment. Further, he sought a relaxation of the geographical restriction to allow him to play football outside the permitted area. F suggested that he could be accompanied by someone such as a police officer. Moreover, F sought to modify the order so that he could attend a particular Arabic-speaking mosque, possess and use a mobile telephone so that he could communicate with his family when outside his home, visit his mother outside the permitted area and stay overnight, and reside in another city. The secretary of state, relying on security reasons, refused F's application.

ISSUE

Whether there was the need for the Home Secretary to modify the curfew period in view of a change in F's circumstances.

HELD (appeal allowed in part)

(i) The proposal to modify the times in order to help F to obtain employment had no basis. F received incapacity benefit because he was unable to work. If F did obtain work, consideration could be given to a modification once the details were known. However, there had been a change in circumstances that required a modification of the curfew period. The hours of services at the mosque had changed. The hours of daylight were longer. A comparatively small modification to the curfew might result in F being able to attend the 19.30 service at the mosque and be home by 20.00. In the circumstances, a curfew between 19.00 and 07.00 did not continue to be necessary; it could be modified by one hour.

(ii) It was impracticable for a police officer to accompany F to football matches. The geographical restriction affecting football grounds continued to be necessary.

(iii) The order should be modified to enable F to attend the Arabic-speaking mosque.

(iv) Restricting F's ability to use a mobile phone in order to limit his ability to communicate with his extremist associates and restricting his ability to spend time with his mother outside the permitted area continued to be necessary.

(v) If F suggested a city in which he would like to reside, the secretary of state could decide whether the current obligation continued to be necessary. However, it was not for the secretary of state to suggest where F should live. Therefore F's request was not a reasonable one.

Zubair Ahmad (instructed by Middleweeks, Manchester) for the appellant. Tim Eicke and Andrew O'Connor (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the respondent. Jeremy Johnson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Special Advocate.