Section 10: Appeals relating to non-derogating control orders
Subsections (1) to (3)
68.Subsection (1) provides that the controlled person may appeal against the renewal or non-consensual modification of a non-derogating control order. When a control order is renewed with modifications, subsection (2) makes it clear that the individual concerned may appeal against any or all of the modifications. Subsection (3) provides that if a person applies to the Secretary of State for the modification or revocation of a non-derogating control order, he may appeal against any decision by the Secretary of State on the application.
Subsections (4) to (6)
69.Subsection (4) provides that when the court hears an appeal against the renewal of a non-derogating control order or against a decision not to revoke a non-derogating control order, it must determine whether either or both of the following decisions of the Secretary of State was flawed:
his decision that it was necessary to renew or continue the control order for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism; and
his decision that it was necessary to renew or continue each of the particular obligations in the control order in question for purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by the controlled person in terrorism-related activity.
70.Subsection (5) provides that when the court hears an appeal against the modification of a non-derogating control order (whether on renewal or otherwise), it must determine whether or not the Secretary of State’s decision that the modification was necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by the controlled person in terrorism-related activity was flawed. When the court hears an appeal against a decision not to modify a non-derogating control order, it must determine whether or not the Secretary of State’s decision that the obligation was still necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by the controlled person in terrorism-related activity was flawed.
71.Subsection (6) provides that the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review when determining matters mentioned in subsections (4) and (5).
Subsections (7) and (8)
72.Subsection (7) provides that if a court upholds an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State in an appeal under this section, it can:
quash the control order;
quash one or more of the particular obligations in the control order;
give directions to the Secretary of State to revoke the control order or modify the obligations it imposes.
73.Subsection (8) states that in every other case, the court must dismiss the appeal.
