The Secretary of State for the Home Department v QT

On a review under Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the court applies judicial-review principles, with the intensity of review varying according to the statutory condition. For involvement in terrorism-related activity, the court must assess both the Secretary of State’s satisfaction and, on the balance of probabilities, whether the activity occurred. For necessity and the measures imposed, the question is whether the Secretary of State was entitled to regard them as necessary and proportionate, allowing appropriate weight to the Secretary of State’s expertise. The absence of evidence sufficient for a criminal prosecution does not preclude a TPIM, since TPIM proceedings may involve closed material, different evidential rules and a different standard of proof.

The Secretary of State applied for permission to impose terrorism prevention and investigation measures on QT, permission to withhold closed material under section 6 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, and an anonymity order. Permission was granted and the TPIM notice was served on 1 August 2018. QT was later arrested for breaches of the notice, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment. The Secretary of State revoked the notice on 11 March 2019, but the court continued the statutory review of whether the relevant conditions had been met until revocation.

The central issues were whether QT was or had been involved in terrorism-related activity, whether the statutory conditions for a TPIM were met, and whether the measures were necessary and proportionate. The court also considered whether the lack of realistically prosecutable evidence prevented reliance on a TPIM.

1. The TPIM notice was upheld. It had been lawful and remained lawful until its revocation on 11 March 2019.
2. Under section 9 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the court reviewed the Secretary of State’s decisions by applying judicial-review principles. For condition A, the court considered whether the Secretary of State was satisfied that QT was or had been involved in terrorism-related activity and was itself satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that he had been so involved. For conditions C and D, the question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to consider the measures necessary and proportionate, giving due weight to the Secretary of State as Parliament’s primary and expert decision-maker.
3. The court found condition A satisfied on three grounds: QT had attempted to travel to territory controlled by Islamic State to participate in terrorism-related activity and maintained an intention to travel for that purpose; he was a longstanding member of ALM and had taken action for its benefit; and, through public speaking and online material, he had encouraged the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism.
4. The absence of evidence capable realistically of supporting a prosecution did not prevent a TPIM. TPIM proceedings were distinct from criminal proceedings because they could use closed material and different standards and rules concerning proof and admissibility. The reasoning on encouragement in the sentencing remarks in R v Choudary and Raman was relevant to the TPIM assessment.
5. Conditions B, C and D were also satisfied. The measures, including relocation, restrictions on association and travel, reporting, monitoring and financial controls, were directed to reducing the risks identified. Their cumulative and individual effects did not outweigh the legitimate aim of protecting the public.