British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
Special Immigrations Appeals Commission
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Special Immigrations Appeals Commission >>
C v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKSIAC 7/2002 (02 July 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2004/7_2002.html
Cite as:
[2004] UKSIAC 7/2002
[
New search]
[
Help]
File
No: SC/7/2002
Date
of Judgment: 2nd July 2004
SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
Before
The Honourable Mr
Justice Ouseley
Mr G Warr
Mr J Mitchell
C
APPELLANT
and
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
RESPONDENT
FIRST OPEN REVIEW JUDGEMENT
- This is the open determination
on the first review of the certificate issued by the Secretary of State
for the Home Department in the case of C under section 21(1) of the
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. His appeal, as with those of
seven others, was dismissed by the Commission in a determination handed
down on 29th October 2003. Section 26 (2)(a) requires that the
Commission hold a first review of the certificate as soon as is
reasonably practicable after the expiry of six months after the appeal was
finally determined.
- For the purpose of this review,
the SSHD sought and was granted an extension of time for putting in
written submissions as the person certified had put in no material as
required by Rule 24 of the SIAC Procedure Rules 2003 and he had tried
unsuccessfully at that stage to ascertain in the case of those persons
represented by Birnberg Pierce whether they were going to submit material
for him to reply to as envisaged by the Rules. Tyndallwoods who
represented C and D told the commission in a letter dated 28th
April 2004 that they did not intend to participate in the review process
on behalf of their clients because the whole SIAC procedure was unfair. In
the event no material was received from any person certified either before
the SSHD’s material was submitted or after.
- We point out that the SSHD is
under an obligation, regardless of whether or not the person certified
puts in material, to put in material which satisfies the requirements of
rule 24(3) within the time limit, i.e. 14 days before the review is due to
commence. Whether or not that means that the person certified can then
reply to it by way of his main evidence, which we accept is not what the
Rules envisage, the obligation on the SSHD is clear.
- The material which the SSHD
must put in appears from Rule 24(3): it must give reason for the
continuation of the certificate, any fresh evidence upon which he relies
for its continuation, and confirmation that any previously given evidence
upon which he continues to rely remains true. This is a duty of continuing
scrutiny upon him.
- The SSHD filed updated generic
open and closed material and updated open and closed individual material
in the case of each person certified. He also provided written
submissions. As we have said we received nothing from any of the persons
certified.
- As the Rules envisage we
considered the reviews in each case on paper, reading or re-reading the
earlier open and closed generic and individual determinations and the
updated material. We are producing our decision in the form of an open and
closed generic judgment, which will be updates to the first generic
judgment and will form part of the overall individual judgment, and
individual open and closed judgments. This repeats the format adopted for
the appeals.
- We start our consideration of
the material on the basis that it is not our task, and could not be, to
consider whether or not the earlier judgments on the material before the
Commission were correct on the merits. We have to examine the new material
to see if it, together with the earlier material as analysed in the
judgments, shows there to be a continuing basis for maintaining the
certificate, or whether there is significant new material showing either
that those earlier conclusions were wrong or that circumstances have
changed so that now the certificate should not be maintained.
- The updated open generic
material, as we explain in the first review update to the open generic
judgment, continues to show that there is a direct terrorist threat to the
United Kingdom from a group or groups of largely North African Islamic
extremists, linked in various ways to Al Qa’eda.
- Although arrests and detentions
have disrupted his range of associates and contacts, there are other
prominent contacts at liberty with whom he would readily resume contact
and re-establish his activities. He continues to have many contacts
abroad, including the EIJ’s European leader, Moawad, who would assist him
carry on his former EIJ linked activities.
- The cheque books and credit
cards, in the name of Hassan, a UK based GI member seized when his house
was searched upon his arrest did not show financial irregularities or
links to terrorism but the large number of different credit cards and
cheque books showed reasonable grounds for the belief that he was engaged
in support activities for terrorists when taken with all the other
evidence. He would still have the will, commitment and ability to resume
his activities in the UK were he to be released. The certificate is
properly maintained.
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
CHAIRMAN