TPIMs in 2012 (March 2013)

Report on Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 in 2012

Government response May 2013, Cm 8614

This report, published in March 2013, was the first evaluation of the operation of the TPIM legislation. There are 8 recommendations set out in the report.

The recommendations were:

  • JTAC should be invited to explore the possibility of providing an authoritative open account of the threat from terrorism, in the form of a regular publicly-accessible report
  • in the event that it should be decided to bring the ETPIM Bill into force, some such formal mechanism for involving the Intelligence and Security Committee as was recommended by the Joint Bill Committee should be given effect, supplemented as may seem appropriate by the involvement of the Intelligence Services Commissioner and/or the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
  • information regarding the location of TPIM subjects, broken down by region, should be supplied in future quarterly reports under TPIMA 2011 section 19
  • the technical, operational and strategic lessons of BX’s recent abscond should be identified and implemented, without abandoning the principle that TPIM requirements must reflect only the risks that are posed by the individual upon whom they are imposed
  • a forum should be established under judicial chairmanship, as recommended in my last report, with the power to consider procedural concerns raised by special advocates and representatives of TPIM subjects and to recommend change to court rules and practices if it considers that such changes are necessary
  • it should be recognised that a “zero tolerance” approach to TPIM compliance will not always be appropriate. In particular, its advantages may need to be weighed in a particular case against any possible negative impact on the exit strategy for that subject
  • more work should be done on developing exit strategies from TPIMs. In particular, any related PREVENT activity should be integrated into the management of TPIMs, and consideration should be given to involving the probation service where appropriate, pursuant to a new or existing power to require attendance at meetings with specified persons
  • the feasibility of requiring involvement in terrorist-related activity to be proved on the balance of probabilities should be kept under careful review, with a view to possible future legislative change

Shortly after completing the report, I gave oral evidence on TPIMs to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.  The JCHR’s report into TPIMs was published in January 2014.

I also gave evidence on TPIMs to the Home Affairs Select Committee in November 2013, as part of its enquiry into counter-terrorism: see transcript at QQ 84-109 and 127-138.

Reference was also made to this report in an opposition day debate in the House of Commons on 21 January 2014.

To view a document in Adobe PDF format, you may first need to download a free copy of the Adobe Acrobat reader (opens in new window)