Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011

Commentary on Sections

Section 14: Replacement of TPIM notice that is quashed etc

96.Section 14 makes provision for circumstances in which a TPIM notice is quashed or directed to be revoked as a result of court proceedings. Such a decision by the court may be as a result of technical deficiencies in the Secretary of State’s use of his or her powers. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State may impose a replacement TPIM notice, subject to certain provisions that ensure the replacement notice interacts in the same way as did the quashed or revoked notice (“the original notice”) with the provisions relating to time limits and new terrorism-related activity.

97.Subsections (2) and (3) have the effect that the replacement TPIM notice may only be in force for the same period of time as the original notice would have been; including that the replacement notice may not be extended if the original notice had already been extended (and therefore could not have been further extended because of the two-year time limit provided by section 5).

98.Similarly, subsections (4) and (5) provide that the quashing or revocation of the TPIM notice, and its subsequent revival, does not alter the status of activity that was new terrorism-related activity in relation to the original notice. Reasonable belief of terrorism-related activity post-dating the imposition of the original notice is not therefore required in order to impose a replacement notice. And if terrorism-related activity occurs after the imposition of the original notice, that may be relied on as “new” activity, allowing for the imposition of a further TPIM notice at the end of the replacement notice.

99.Subsection (6) has the effect that if there is evidence that the individual engaged in further terrorism-related activity since the imposition of the overturned TPIM notice, the Secretary of State may (instead of being bound by the rules set out above) impose a new TPIM notice which triggers a new two year time limit. The reason for this is that the policy throughout the Act is that terrorism-related activity which occurs since the imposition of measures on an individual allows the Secretary of State to impose measures on that individual beyond the two year time limit.