A terror suspect must be brought back to London from “internal exile” in the Midlands despite convincing secret evidence that he intended to take part in terrorist-related activity, the High Court ruled today.

Mr Justice Mitting said that on the basis of the confidential information he would have upheld a Home Office decision to amend a control order to move the father of five from East London, identified only as BM, to the Midlands.

But he said that, following a recent Law Lords ruling, terror suspects on control orders had to be provided with enough information to challenge the case against them.

Mr Justice Mitting said: “On the basis of the closed material, I would have decided that the decision was not flawed and would have upheld the modification, notwithstanding its significant and highly adverse impact upon BM’s family, in particular upon his children.”

He ruled that the suspect should be allowed to return to London as the Home Office had refused to provide enough information for him to instruct lawyers to challenge the exile.

It is thought that it is the first case to come before the courts since the ruling last month.

BM, aged 36, is accused of being a “prominent member of a network of Islamist extremists” and is under a control order designed to restrict his movements and ability to mix freely.

He was forced to move from to Leicester when the Home Secretary modified his control order.

The Home Office said the move was to stop BM associating with his extremist contacts “with a view to engaging in terrorist-related activity” and because there was a danger that he would abscond.

Jacqui Smith and her successor at the Home Office, Alan Johnson, refused to disclose to lawyers acting for BM the secret information on which the decision to change the terms of his control order was based.

BM’s lawyers said at the High Court in London that his continuing exile infringed his civil right to occupy his home.

Mr Justice Mitting agreed and ruled that the modification, imposed in May, deprived BM “of a civil right for a significant period”.

The judge said the Home Secretary had attempted to justify interfering with that right by arguing that there was a risk of BM absconding and that his removal from London was necessary to minimise that risk.

The judge said the Home Secretary’s refusal to reveal secret reports to BM meant the court was left with “a bare assertion” that there was a risk of absconding and that assertion had to be treated by the court as “groundless”.

He added that there was “closed material” which he had heard in secret that would have led to him coming to a different decision if the law had allowed him to take it into account.

The judge gave the Home Secretary seven days to revoke the order and return BM to his home.

Mr Justice Mitting refused leave to appeal, saying the law had been clearly established by the Law Lords but the Home Secretary can still ask the Court of Appeal to hear the case.

During the hearing of the case, Dinah Rose, QC, for BM, said the Home Secretary had failed to supply even the “irreducible minimum” of information necessary to give him a fair hearing.

She said he had become alienated from friends and family and, according to medical evidence, was suicidal.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the civil rights group, said: “As if house arrest forever without charge wasn’t bad enough, now control orders have an extra layer of cruelty — internal exile.

“No serious terrorist would obey a control order and a number of suspects have disappeared. Once more the courts have stood up for common decency whilst Parliament lags behind.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Baroness Ashton: EU couldn’t make it up
• The other belles de nos jours
• Why too much of a good thing is bad for you