Three terror suspects on control orders have unanimously won a major ruling over the use of secret evidence.A control order seems to be a kind of house arrest scheme: curfew, ankle bracelets with electronic surveillance transponders, and restrictions on association and travel. In the U.S., equivalent house arrest restrictions would pose major First Amendment problems, I would guess, so the government would have to prove to a very high standard that the restrictions were required. (On the one hand, the government would probably say, "They're prisoners so the government has more discretion." And the counterargument would be that they're only suspects, not convicts, so the reason for allowing all those First Amendment violations in prisons shouldn't apply.) But in the U.K., until this ruling, a terror suspect under a control order would not be allowed to know "any of the secret intelligence assessments that form the basis of the restrictions." Yikes: the government calls you a terror suspect, won't let you see the evidence they have for the charge, and puts you under house arrest anyway.
Nine Law Lords allowed the men's appeals after they had argued they did not know what they were accused of.
Control orders haven't been abolished, however. Some 2 dozen men are still under control orders in the U.K., and the prosecutors appear to be waiting for them to take the initiative themselves to try to get released.