The Supreme Court has upheld a terror suspect’s human rights appeal against a control order that separated him from his family.

The court agreed an Ethiopian national, referred to as AP, was deprived of his liberty because of home secretary orders to serve the 16-hour curfew 150 miles away from his London home.

A unanimous decision handed down by the seven judges states the government’s decision to amend the originally London-based control order to one which required AP to move to the Midlands was in breach of article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

AP came to Britain with his family in 1992 at the age of 14 and was eventually granted indefinite leave to remain. He later became suspected of terrorism, and, although at first he was denied re-entry to the UK, he was later granted leave to remain under a stringent control order.

AP’s counsel, Edward Fitzgerald QC, as instructed by Wilson Solicitors, agreed the original order, which requires that AP meets a 16-hour curfew and wears an electronic tag, was not in question.

But the subsequent decision to shift the daily curfew requirements from London, where he lives, to a town 150 miles away in the Midlands was appealed.

The High Court upheld AP’s initial appeal, which was later reversed by the Court of Appeal.

Robin Tam QC, instructed by the Treasury solicitor, argued the home secretary must be free to make orders without having to pre-empt unpredictable case-based details of whether or not it could constitute a breach of article 5.

AP’s victory in Home Department v AP [2010] UKSC 24 is now irrelevant to him, as the home secretary has again decided to deport him. But, the country’s highest court stated: “While the outcome of the appeal is no longer relevant for AP himself, the points it raises are said to be of some general importance with regard to control orders.”

It is the second Supreme Court decision this week relating to details of asylum seekers’ rights.

In MS v Home Department [2010] UKSC 25, an appeal against deportation on the grounds that he would not be admitted to the country stated in the order was not successful.

The panel unanimously dismissed the appeal by a Gaza national stating that, although it was agreed MS would not be admitted to Palestine on his return, this did not render the Home Office’s deportation unlawful.