PLANS for tough new anti- terrorism measures were thrown into fresh turmoil yesterday when it was disclosed that Britain’s most senior law lord has serious concerns about control orders.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill was not consulted on the plans before they were published in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, a former law lord said.

The revelations came as a committee of MPs and peers said that a government compromise making judges responsible for house arrest control orders still seemed to breach human rights laws.

Changes by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, to limit his power to issue home detention control orders may not go far enough, the all-party Joint Committee on Human Rights said. Mr Clarke wants to retain the right of the Home Secretary to make any kind of control order banning terrorist suspects from using the phone or internet, or imposing a curfew, without the need for a charge or trial.

Until now judicial opposition has come from former senior judges in the House of Lords. But Lord Ackner, a former law lord, told The World at One on BBC Radio 4: “They (judges) will be worried if they are asked merely to rubber stamp what the executive has decided.

“It sounds so much better to say ‘leave it to the judge’ but if you leave it to the judge without his being able to exercise the obligations of due process, you are not leaving it to the judge at all.

“I have spoken to the senior law lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and he is very concerned that the function of the judges remain strictly judicial and that there should be no basis for suggesting that they merely rubber stamp what the Government puts in front of them . . . I don’t think he was consulted.”

Lord Ackner added: “It is quite clear from the way in which the Bill is drafted that the defendant is not to be told the nature of the case against him, or the facts that are going to be urged against him, or the basis of the decision.”

Lord Ackner spoke out after the report from the joint committee welcomed “considerable progress towards a greater degree of judicial involvement in the process of making control orders that deprive (people) of liberty”. It was the committee’s second report in a week on the Bill, which is being rushed through Parliament to meet the release of detainees from Belmarsh prison on March 14.

The committee set out three main reasons why control orders could still breach the European Convention on Human Rights. First, the committee questioned the ability of the Home Secretary to request an order without telling the suspect, particularly as Mr Clarke is bringing in an instant power of arrest while an order is sought. The members said they could see no reason why the suspect could not be allowed to be represented at the initial stage because there will be new powers to detain them while the procedure takes place.

Second, the committee thought that the threshold for a judge to assess the order was too low; and third, there was criticism of the special closed sessions and system of special advocates, which would eventually hear the suspects’ case.

The committee said: “We . . . question whether the degree of prior judicial involvement provided for in the Government’s amendments in relation to derogating (from the Convention on Human Rights) control orders is compatible with the Convention requirement that deprivations of liberty must be lawful.”

A Home Office spokes- woman said: “Since the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its draft report last week, the Government has amended the Bill to provide further judicial safeguards. We believe the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting the security of the nation and observing civil liberties.”

The Bill is now in the House of Lords. It is due to return to the Commons on Wednesday.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• The Times obituary: Tomaz Humar
• Too proud to claim my Jaffa Cakes on expenses
• Leaders say sorry to transported children