Section 7 and Schedule 2: Urgent cases: reference to the court etc
74.This section gives effect to Schedule 2. Schedule 2 makes provision relating to a case in which the Secretary of State imposes measures on an individual without first obtaining the permission of the court (in accordance with condition E (section 3(5)(b)). Schedule 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State to include a statement in the TPIM notice confirming his or her reasonable belief as to the urgency of the case, and immediately to refer the case to the court after the imposition of measures on the individual. The court’s consideration of the case must begin within seven days of service of the TPIM notice.
75.The Schedule makes provision for the function and powers of the court on these proceedings. The function of the court is to consider whether the relevant decisions (as set out in paragraph (6)(2)) of the Secretary of State were obviously flawed, including the decision that the urgency condition was met. The court must quash the TPIM notice if it determines that certain of the Secretary of State’s decisions were obviously flawed. If it determines that the specified measures are obviously flawed, but otherwise the TPIM notice was properly imposed, it must quash those measures and otherwise confirm the TPIM notice. Paragraph 4(4) provides that, if the court decides that the Secretary of State’s decision that the urgency condition is met was obviously flawed, it must make a declaration to that effect (as well as quashing or confirming the TPIM notice in accordance with the other provisions of that paragraph).
