The Court of Appeal has paved the way for terror suspects to sue for damages over legally-flawed control orders that breached human rights.
Three appeal judges rejected a Government challenge to a landmark High Court ruling allowing compensation claims in the cases of AF and AE, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
While in office, former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson agreed the orders must be "revoked" because neither man had been given sufficient disclosure of the evidence supporting the allegations of terror-related activity made against them.
Mr Justice Silber, sitting at the High Court in London in January, said the orders must not only be revoked but quashed - with retrospective effect.
The decision effectively gave the go-ahead for damages claims for loss of liberty and alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights dating back to 2006, when the orders were first imposed.
The Government appealed against the single judge's decision.
But Lord Justice Maurice Kay, sitting with Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, has dismissed the appeal and ruled the "appropriate remedy" was quashing with retrospective effect.
Lord Justice Kay said: "I agree with the submission made on behalf of the controlees that, if the appropriate remedy was merely revocation, there is a risk that the breach of convention rights would go substantially unremedied."