## Facts

- Control orders were part of the UK’s counter-terrorism framework, imposing strict limitations on individuals' liberty, including movement and communication.
- The government often relied on secret intelligence for control orders, leading to the use of closed material procedures (CMPs).
- CMPs allowed the state to present evidence in private to a court without disclosing it fully to the affected individual.
- Special advocates were appointed to represent individuals’ interests during closed sessions.
- The claimant contested that insufficient disclosure in control order proceedings undermined their right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The House of Lords was asked to determine the minimum standard of disclosure necessary for a fair hearing in control order cases.

## Issues

1. Whether control order proceedings that rely on closed material procedures without adequate disclosure satisfy the requirements of a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR.
2. What minimum information must be disclosed to an individual subject to a control order to allow them to effectively challenge the case against them.
3. Whether the roles of special advocates in closed hearings can compensate for limited disclosure to the individual.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that Article 6 ECHR requires individuals facing control orders to be provided with sufficient information regarding the allegations against them.
- While CMPs are not inherently unlawful, their use must not undermine the right to a fair hearing.
- Even with special advocates present, the affected person must receive at least the main allegations so that they can instruct their lawyers to mount an effective defense.
- The balance between state security and individual rights must be maintained, but fairness requires a minimum standard of disclosure.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6 ECHR enshrines the right to a fair, public hearing, applying to cases with significant civil consequences such as control orders.
- Closed material procedures may be used but cannot override the core right to sufficient disclosure for a fair defence.
- Special advocates can assist in ensuring fairness but are not a substitute for the individual knowing the main case against them.
- The court must review secret evidence and share as much information as possible without endangering public safety.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords in Home Secretary v AF (No 3) established that individuals subject to control orders must be informed of the essence of the case against them for Article 6 ECHR compliance, setting important disclosure standards for all proceedings involving closed material procedures in national security contexts.

Home Secretary v AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28 [2010] 2 AC 269