DERBY has again been linked to international terrorism – this time in a court case that could spell trouble for the Government's tough security laws.

A 27-year-old man, who was born in Derby, is one of two men challenging a control order which restricts their movements.

It is the seventh case in the past few years of Derby people with alleged terror connections.

A Derby terror suspect, known as GG, who was arrested at his Derby home in 2005, had his appeal against a control order thrown out two weeks ago.

Krenar Lusha is awaiting trial for his alleged links with a terrorism plot to kill Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Derby-born Parviz Khan was jailed for life in February last year for plotting to kill a British Muslim soldier.

Umran Javed, of Derby, was jailed for six years for shouting pro-terrorism remarks at a protest outside London's Danish embassy in February 2007.

In August that year, it was revealed that Mala Isa, a former Derby man gunned down in Iraq, may have had links to terrorism.

In 2003, suicide bomber Omar Sharif, from Derby, tried to kill himself and others in a Tel Aviv bar. He failed but a fellow suicide bomber killed three people and injured 65 others.

In the latest case, a man referred to only as AF, who was born in 1981 in Derby and has dual Libyan and British nationality, is the subject of a control order. This means he must stay in his rented flat on the outskirts of Manchester for up to 16 hours a day.

He cannot see anyone without permission, or use the internet, and his lawyer says the regime is procedurally unfair.

Another British-born man, known only as AN, is also challenging the order at the Court of Appeal, during a four-day hearing in front of nine Law Lords.

Control orders were first introduced in 2005 and can be imposed by the Home Secretary on terror suspects, even though they are told nothing about the evidence against them, and have not been convicted of any crime.

Lord Pannick QC, who is representing AF, said these conditions cannot be right if his defence lawyers are not told why he is suspected of terrorism so they can respond.

It is thought that if the appeal is successful, Britain's anti-terrorist policies will suffer a major blow.

Both suspects are challenging a ruling at the Court of Appeal upholding the legality of control orders. The ruling has been criticised because of the widespread implications for civil liberties.

Two of the appeal judges said there might be cases where "very little indeed" or nothing could be disclosed to people accused of being involved in terrorism.

The restrictions imposed by control orders amount to house arrest. They include controls on who a person can meet with or speak to; as well as restrictions on when a person can leave their house and where they can go.

A spokesman for human rights group Liberty said Parliament would debate today whether the control orders system would be renewed.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said the orders were one of the "worst legacies of the War on Terror". She said: "Any MP who believes in fair trials and regaining Britain's moral authority must vote against renewing this cruel and self-defeating nonsense today."