Matt Cavanagh

Replacing control orders: an unsatisfactory compromise 

A small silver lining for David Cameron in the ‘cash for access scandal’: on a quieter day, today’s report on the coalition’s replacement of control orders with ‘Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures’ (TPIMs) might have got more attention. The report, published by the Independent Reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, makes for difficult reading for ministers.

Before looking at the detail of the report, it is worth remembering that control orders were always a second-best policy. Their origin lies in the dilemma, which no government looks likely to solve any time soon, of what to do with someone whom the authorities suspect of involvement in terrorism, but who cannot be prosecuted — nor, if they are a foreign national, deported. Prosecution can be impossible either because the information the authorities have on the suspect is not of a kind that would support a prosecution, or because revealing that information would endanger our intelligence services.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in