Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Miranda v SSHD examining officer to question Mr Miranda for the purpose of determining whether he appeared to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b) of TACT. In my judgment, there was nothing to suggest that, following the receipt of the PCS, the MPS decided to execute the stop for any other purpose. It is, therefore, not necessary to go further than the examining officers’ state of mind in executing the final PCS. But the purpose of the exercise of the stop powers can also be judged by reference to the state of mind of the examining officers’ superior officers: see R (Pearce) v Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis [2013] EWCA Civ 866 at para 36. The superior officers were fully alive to the difference between a stop for Schedule 7 purposes and a stop for the Security Services’ purposes. As Det Supt Stokley said at para 20 of his first statement, the objectives of the Security Service and the police were distinct: see para 9 above. He recognised that the stop power could not be exercised unless the statutory conditions for its exercise were met: see para 10 above. That is why he wanted to initiate further enquiries to see whether Mr Miranda or others were concerned in CPI. But the national security and counter-terrorism considerations in this case were linked and overlapped, as was reflected by the fact that this was a joint operation which had been initiated by the Security Service. The fact that the exercise of the Schedule 7 power also promoted the Security Service different (but overlapping) purpose does not, however, mean that the power was not exercised for the Schedule 7 purpose. The MPS exercised the power for its own purpose of determining whether Mr Miranda appeared to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b) of TACT. Was the purpose improper? 32. Having decided what the purpose of the stop was in fact, Laws LJ considered whether that purpose fell within the scope of Schedule 7. At para 32, he said that the Schedule 7 power was given: “[I]n order to provide a reasonable but limited opportunity for the ascertainment of a possibility: the possibility that a traveller at a port may be involved (“concerned” – section 40(1)(b)), directly or indirectly, in any of a range of activities enumerated in section 1(2).” 33. And at para 36, he effectively repeated what he had said at para 27: “In all the circumstances, given the facts stated in the last PCS and the National Security Justification, I conclude that the purpose of the stop – to ascertain the nature of the material which the claimant was carrying and if on examination it proved to be as was feared, to neutralise the effects of its release (or further release) or dissemination – fell properly within Schedule 7 of the 2000 Act on the latter’s true construction.” 34. Mr Ryder submits that Laws LJ made three errors. First, the NSJ justification was the dominant purpose and was not, in itself, a purpose falling within Schedule 7. I have already dealt with this argument. The true and dominant purpose of the stop was not to give effect to the NSJ. It was to give effect to the PCS.