UK terrorism suspect's human rights breached-court

LONDON, Apr 12 (Reuters) A London court ruled today that ''control orders'' imposed against a British terrorism suspect who wanted to go to fight U S-led forces in Iraq breached his human rights as he had not had a fair hearing.

The man, referred to as MB, is one of 11 people, three of whom are British nationals, currently subject to stringent measures brought in by last year's Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Under the law, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke can order suspects be placed under control orders ranging from electronic tagging, surveillance and in extreme cases, house arrest.

High Court judge Justice Sullivan ruled today that an order to severely restrict MB's movements and prevent him from going to Iraq had been made without allowing him the right to a fair hearing, in contravention of the Human Rights Act.

He said a ''thin veneer of legality'' could not disguise the fact that suspects' rights were being made ''by xecutive decision-making untrammelled by any prospect of effective judicial supervision''.

''The issue raised in these proceedings is whether the Act gives the respondent the fair hearing to which he is entitled.

The answer to that question is 'no,''' Sullivan said in his judgement.

However the judge ruled that Clarke's decision to impose the control order against MB, the first Briton to be subject to the measures, was not legally flawed and ordered that it should remain in place.

The decision comes just over a year after judges declared previous security powers to be unlawful.

The existing legislation was rushed through parliament after Britain's most senior court ruled in December 2004 that previous tough laws brought in after the September. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States also violated human rights.

Those laws, which only applied to non-British citizens, had been used to detain foreign terrorism suspects indefinitely without charge or trial.

The Home Office said Clarke would appeal against today's ruling, adding it would not inhibit his use of control orders.

''In our view the 2005 Act ... contains rigorous safeguards to protect the rights of the individual, including judicial oversight and reporting and reviewing requirements,'' a spokesman said.

''We will not be revoking either the control order which was the subject of this review, nor any of the other control orders currently in force on the back of this judgment.'' He said the government believed the measures remained the best way of dealing with ''the continuing threat posed by suspected terrorists who cannot currently be prosecuted or, in respect of foreign nationals, removed from the UK''.

However civil right campaigners said they hoped the government would take notice of the verdict.

''This is the second time in less than two years that British courts have had to indict the government's anti-terror policies,'' said Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty.

''Fundamental human rights such as the right to a fair trial are what distinguish democrats from terrorists and dictators.'' REUTERS SRS BST2145