Commentary 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:
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).