Terrorism suspect loses control order appeal
A terrorism suspect exiled to Norwich from Crawley to take him away from his radicalised friends has lost his High Court challenge to the restrictions placed on him.
The 26-year-old called BG for security reasons was moved to Norwich under a Home Office Control Order in 2009.
BG's barrister's argued that the order forcing him away from his family and friends in Crawley was "unnecessary".
But Mr Justice Ouseley ruled it was necessary to protect the public.
BG told the High Court of the isolation he endured in Norwich where he could find no work, had no friends and was subjected to racial abuse.
The court heard BG has recently been allowed to return to Crawley for family reasons.
His barrister, Joel Bennathan QC, argued the order too restrictive and "unnecessary" to protect the public.
Mr Bennathan said BG was neither an "extremist" or "radical" and he said this was supported by a statement from the chairman of the mosque where BG worshipped while in Norwich.
But the challenge was dismissed by Mr Justice Ouseley, who said it was up to the Home Office and the security services to decide when, and if, BG can again live free of restrictions in the community.
The judge said BG had twice travelled to Pakistan in 2008 and, when attempting to do so again in 2009, was stopped at the airport.
The security services suspected he was involved with two brothers who "absconded" to Pakistan in 2008, intent on joining the fighting in Afghanistan.
The judge said one of the main reasons for his "enforced relocation" was to separate him from other extremists living in Crawley.
Despite relaxations in the terms of his order, he is still banned from entering areas where his extremist associates live.
BG had denied using "anti-surveillance measures" to avoid the security services while in Norwich, claiming manoeuvres he made when lost in a strange city had been misinterpreted.
However, the judge said: "I do not accept his explanation for all the anti-surveillance actions in Norwich which I believe took place and in which he tried to see what the limits of effectiveness might be.
"There are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there were prohibited contacts and pre-arranged meetings (in Norwich)".
The restrictions on BG's personal freedom were "all necessary for purposes connected to preventing or restricting his involvement in terrorism-related activity", the judge concluded.