▁principle ▁of ▁habe as ▁cor pus , ▁cod ified ▁in ▁Mag na ▁Cart a , ▁should ▁not ▁have ▁been ▁r ushed ▁through ▁Parliament ▁in ▁the ▁first ▁place ▁and ▁that ▁a ▁review ▁leaves ▁it ▁to ▁the ▁opposition ▁to ▁defeat ▁the ▁legisl ation , ▁unlike ▁a ▁sun set ▁clause , ▁which ▁would ▁require ▁the ▁government ▁to ▁prove ▁that ▁these ▁extraordinary ▁powers ▁were ▁still ▁a ▁necessary ▁and ▁proportion ate ▁response ▁to ▁the ▁threat ▁of ▁terror ism ▁in ▁the ▁UK ; ▁compar isons ▁were ▁made ▁with ▁the ▁det ention ▁prov isions ▁of ▁South ▁Africa ' s ▁apart heid - era ▁T error ism ▁Act ▁No ▁ 8 3 ▁of ▁ 1 9 6 7 . ▁▁ ▁F ew ▁critics ▁claimed ▁that ▁the ▁terror ist ▁threat ▁was ▁not ▁real , ▁merely ▁that ▁these ▁powers ▁were ▁not ▁the ▁best ▁way ▁to ▁address ▁that ▁threat , ▁that ▁arbitrary ▁powers ▁are ▁more ▁likely ▁to ▁lead ▁to ▁a ▁mis car riage ▁of ▁justice ▁and ▁that ▁pro sec ution ▁in ▁a ▁court ▁of ▁law ▁would ▁be ▁a ▁better ▁solution . ▁The ▁most ▁commonly ▁presented ▁counter - argument ▁was ▁that ▁protect ing ▁British ▁citizens ' ▁freedom ▁to ▁live ▁and ▁go ▁about ▁their ▁lives ▁without ▁fear ▁of ▁terror ism ▁is ▁more ▁important ▁than ▁the ▁civil ▁libert ies ▁of ▁sus pected ▁terror ists . ▁ ▁Rest rict ions ▁permitted ▁by ▁the ▁Act ▁ ▁Control ▁orders ▁could ▁contain ▁restrictions ▁that ▁the ▁Home ▁Secretary ▁or ▁a ▁court ▁" cons iders ▁necessary ▁for ▁purposes ▁connected ▁with ▁prevent ing ▁or ▁restrict ing ▁invol vement ▁by ▁that ▁individual ▁in ▁terror ism