Court upholds decision to impose control order on terror suspect A decision by the home secretary, Theresa May, to impose a control order on a terror suspect who is banned from London has been upheld by the high court. A judge said he was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the suspect, known as CD – who cannot be named for legal reasons – “is a leading figure in a network of Islamist extremists based in north London”. Mr Justice Owen, sitting in London, said the suspect “has been involved in planning an attack or attacks on members of the public”. He said the targets of those attacks were “most likely in London and potentially involving firearms.” The judge also ruled that the restrictions imposed on CD’s freedom, including the decision to relocate him from London to a city in the Midlands, were a “necessary and proportionate measure for the protection of the public from the risk presented by CD and his associates”. Lawyers for CD, a father of two who has joint UK and Nigerian nationality, had argued that MI5 reports assessing the danger he posed were flawed and that the control order itself was causing “disproportionate” distress to his family. The lawyers contended that there was insufficient evidence to justify the restrictions, imposed under anti-terror legislation in February. But Owen rejected CD’s argument and accepted security service evidence that CD presented a real threat to the public. At a recent hearing, an MI5 witness had given evidence that it was “strongly assessed” that CD attended a terror training camp in Cumbria in 2004. Written statements before the judge suggested that four men who unsuccessfully attempted to explode rucksack bombs on the London underground on 21 July 2005 were also at the camp. The judge was told there was evidence that CD underwent further training in Syria for three years and, while there, began planning a terrorist attack against the UK. On his return to Britain in April 2009, the attack planning continued and he and his associates made several attempts to obtain firearms, he was told. The court heard that a key aim of the London ban was to restrict CD’s ability to meet two associates, referred to as TM and MS, and make attack plans. It was also intended to hamper his ability “to procure firearms and carry out an attack in this country”. Lisa Giovannetti QC, appearing for the home secretary, told the court at a recent hearing: “The secretary of state assesses that CD and his associates intend to carry out attacks, most likely in London and potentially using firearms, and that CD may have raised funds for the purpose of procuring firearms. “The secretary of state also assesses that CD has made several attempts to procure firearms since his return to the UK in April 2009.” May was ordered, at an earlier court hearing before a different judge, to contribute to the cost of visits to CD by family members who remain living in London. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has appealed to government ministers to keep CD away from the capital. Johnson said: “It’s clear from the court papers that he rejects and would like to destroy everything that makes this a great city. We don’t want this man in London.” The relocation powers under control orders are being ditched by the coalition under new terrorist prevention and investigation measures (TPIMs). The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told the Commons that plans to water down control orders would mean CD could no longer be stopped from living in the capital. Johnson recently urged ministers to “think again”. A Home Office spokesman said: “The new regime of TPIMs will mean suspected terrorists who were unable to be prosecuted cannot go freely about their terrorism-related activities, and we will continue to be able to protect the public from the threat they pose.” Control orders UK criminal justice Theresa May guardian.co.uk