112 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights stigmatise someone with the label of a “suspected terrorist”, and can do severe reputational damage. Family members, friends, professional colleagues are all likely to feel the consequences of such labelling, and this “chill factor” may deepen the individual’s sense of isolation. In the UK, an attempt has been made by the authorities to compensate for some of the procedural failings of control orders by borrowing the “special advocates” system originally introduced in immigration proceedings. As in the immigration context (see earlier discussion), this response has been criticised by many as inadequate to permit the ��controlee” to effectively challenge the allegations against them. The House of Lords has not found the control order scheme as such to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act.276 The judiciary has however held that a system of “special advocates” will not necessarily compensate for the grave legal disadvantage experienced by those being issued with a control order, and that courts must look “at the process as a whole” to determine whether or not, on the facts of a particular case, justice has been done.277 In December 2005, Australia enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 to introduce preventive control order regimes similar to that in the UK. Participants indicated to the Panel that they were particularly concerned over the introduction of such legislation in Australia, where there is not even the equivalent safeguard to the UK’s Human Rights Act. In practice, these control orders have been used only twice, but both have been highly contentious.278 In one case, an interim control order was imposed on Joseph Thomas, shortly after his conviction on terrorism charges was quashed on appeal.279 In the other case, David Hicks, a former detainee at Guantánamo Bay, was transferred back to Australia as part of a plea agreement to serve a nine month prison term after pleading guilty to terrorism charges before the US military commissions. Shortly before finishing his prison term, Mr Hicks was issued with an interim control order.280 In contrast to the UK system, which requires the Secretary of State to consider the viability of criminal prosecution prior to issuing a control order, and the chief police officer to keep under review the investigation of the controllee’s chat freely on telephones to avoid any misunderstanding in their listeners; and report a total sense of “disorientation”. 276 The Human Rights Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic UK law. 277 See in particular, UK House of Lords, Secretary of State for the Home Department v. MB (FC) 2007 UKHL 46, para. 35 and R (Roberts) v. Parole Board (2005) AC 738, para. 83. 278 See Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services, Research Paper No. 28, 2007-2008 “Anti-terrorism control orders in Australia and the UK: a comparison”, 29 April 2008. 279 Joseph Thomas had his conviction on terrorism charges quashed on the grounds that his confession in Pakistan was not freely given; the subsequent control order included a curfew in his home, reporting to police three times a week, pre-approval of phone and internet communications. See also Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Terrorism, Australia, Study on Human Rights Compliance While Countering Terrorism, A/HRC/4/26/Add.3, 14 December 2006, para. 38. 280 David Hicks’ interim control order covered similar grounds to those of Joseph Thomas (see above). In November 2008, the Attorney General announced that he would not seek extension of the order.