Control orders infringe the most fundamental principles of due process, and should be replaced with surveillance and criminal trial, the Law Society has urged.

Control orders are an anti-terrorism power that allows curfews of up to 16 hours a day, electronic tagging, regular home searches and other restrictions to be imposed on terror suspects. The orders often rely on secret evidence and the suspects are not tried in open court. Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg is expected to make an announcement soon about scrapping or amending the orders.

Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said: ‘The usual principles of criminal law and the normal criminal process should be utilised, so that where suspicion of involvement in a criminal offence exists, the person should be subject to a criminal trial in the normal way.

‘Criminal prosecutions of suspected terrorists should be undertaken where sufficient evidence exists. Where it does not and suspicion remains, targeted lawful surveillance of those against whom there is suspicion but insufficient evidence to prosecute would be a more proportionate and effective solution.’

Hudson added that just nine people are currently subject to control orders. ‘The argument that surveillance is not a practical option is simply implausible,’ he said. Hudson called on the government to admit communications intercept evidence in criminal trials. ‘We note that all other comparable jurisdictions have no such ban (on intercept evidence),’ he said.