This problem is far from over

TODAY'S European Court of Human Rights ruling brings to an end years of legal controversy over the Government's decision soon after the 9/11 attacks to introduce a new system of indefinite detention for a small number of foreign terror suspects living in the UK.

But the heart of the problem faced by ministers remains how to protect the public from extremists who live here and who it is difficult - or impossible - to deport because their home country either practises torture or might otherwise breach their human rights.

Its initial response had been to introduce the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 which created an emergency power to detain foreign terror suspects indefinitely until they agreed to either leave the country voluntarily or could be deported.

The arbitrary nature of these detentions was heavily criticised and in 2004 they were ruled unlawful by the House of Lords.

That ruling required the release of the Belmarsh detainees. Ministers' response in 2005 was to introduce the equally contentious system of control orders, which impose restrictions such as curfews and bans on terror suspects who are deemed to pose a serious danger, but about whom there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.

A series of cases in which those under control orders have absconded has highlighted the weakness of this system. So far, despite a crucial Law Lords victory yesterday, ministers have also struggled to deport individuals such as Qatada because of a succession of protracted legal challenges.

It means that the challenge of how to ensure that the public is protected from the risk of terrorist attack, while safeguarding the country's reputation for legal fair treatment of suspects, remains as difficult as ever.