Control order
A control order is an order made by the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom to restrict an individual's liberty for the purpose of "protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism". Its definition and power were provided by Parliament in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Control orders were also included in the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. The control orders section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act provides for extremely limited rights of appeal and the absence of double jeopardy restrictions (i.e. if a recipient managed to win an appeal in the Court  of Appeal or other tribunal, the Home Office could simply re-apply the same order again). This has led to many court rulings highly critical of the orders. The Prevention of Terrorism Act and control orders were repealed in December 2011 by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. Powers. The list of possible restrictions and obligations that can be included in a control order is long. It can place restrictions on what the person can use or possess, their place of work, place of residence, whom they speak to, and where they can travel. Furthermore, the person can  be ordered to surrender their passport, let the police visit their home at any time, report to officials at a specific time and place, and allow themselves to be electronically tagged so their movements can be tracked. In short, it provides for a graduated scale of technological "prisons without bars" that are intended to work within the European Convention on Human Rights. When the control order crosses the line and "deprives liberty", rather than "restricts liberty", it is called a "derogating control order" because it infringes Article 5 of the ECHR. This can only happen if there is a derogation  according to Article 15, and the Home Secretary must apply to a court for the authority. Derogation is only allowed when there is a "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation". The ECHR states that the government cannot deprive any person of their liberty without due process of law. This process must include informing the person of the accusation against him, giving him access to legal assistance to prepare his defence, and giving him the right to have his case heard and decided in public before a competent court. The government has claimed that the  terrorist allegations against certain individuals are of such a nature and from such sources that they cannot be prosecuted "because that would mean revealing sensitive and dangerous intelligence". History. The power to make control orders was voted through Parliament on the evening of 11 March 2005 after a famously long session of Parliamentary ping-pong. The ten detainees being held under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 were released from Belmarsh and were immediately subject to control orders. On March 24, 2005, one of the men, Abu Rideh, gave a newspaper interview where he  denied having any connection with terrorism, and was able to outline the contents of his order. On April 16, 2005, it was reported that all 10 control orders had been printed with the same reason, connecting individuals with the Wood Green "ricin plot". It was blamed on a "clerical error". On 23 May 2011, following a Government Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Measures published in January 2011, the Home Office announced the scheme intended to replace the control orders: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM). Although intended to be more flexible and to focus more on the investigation of  the individual suspected of terrorism-related activity with increased judicial oversight, they have been dubbed as mere re-brandings of control orders. Timeline of ministerial statements and legal challenges. Section 14 requires the Home Secretary to make a statement to Parliament every three months reporting about their exercise of the control order powers.