The appellants had been refused refugee status on the ground that they were suspected of having been guilty of terrorist acts. They said that the definition of terrorism applied within the UK was wider than that in the Convention which contained the exemption under which they were to be excluded.
Held: The appeals failed. The exemption must be construed tightly and applied only with caution, recognising the need for it to be applied only for serious criminal acts with international implications and adequate evidence of responsibility.
The article required acts inconsistent the United Nations purposes and principles, and it was not open to member states to adopt their own definition. At the moment there was no internationally recognised defition of terrorism, which meant in turn that even greater caution was required and that it should be triggered only in extreme circumstances. The test was whether the resulting acts had the requisite serious effect upon international peace. The definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act was significantly wider than in article 1F(c) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
The applicant DD had fought against the ISAF and UNAMA forces in Afghanistan. Whilst the standards applicable might differ as between such forces, the ISAF at least was clearly a force seeking to apply the UN principles and purposes, and DD’s Acts were contrary to it.
In Al-Sirri’s case the real issue was as to the presence of proof of his involvement. He had been tried and acquitted for the offence on which his exclusion was based. ‘Serious reasons for considering’ was not the same as proof beyond reasonable doubt, and its meaning was autonomous. It required more than ‘reasonable grounds’. Strong or clear and credible evidence had to be present and the considered judgment of the decision-maker was required.
Lady Hale and Lord Dyson said: ‘there is as yet no internationally agreed definition of terrorism’ and ‘no comprehensive international Convention binding Member States to take action against it’.
Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson, Lord Wilson
[2012] UKSC 54, [2012] 3 WLR 1263, [2012] WLR(D) 333, UKSC 2009/0036, [2013] 1 AC 745, [2013] 1 All ER 1267
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD
Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1F(c), Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 54
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 3-Sep-2002
FCC (Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division) – Application by Pushpanathan for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division that he was not a Convention refugee. Pushpanathan . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v DD (Afghanistan) CA 10-Dec-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for asylum and protection on human rights grounds. He said that if returned to Afghanistan he would face a real risk of serious harm. . .
Appeal from – Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 18-Mar-2009
The applicant appealed against rejection of his asylum claim on the basis of his alleged involvement in acts of terrorism. He had been set to face trial but the charges were dropped for insufficient evidence.
Held: Sedley LJ considered the . .
Cited – JS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 17-Mar-2010
The asylum seeker was accused of complicity in war crimes in Sri Lanka. He had worked as an intelligence officer but his cover had been broken and he fled to the UK. It was said that he was excluded from protection as an asylum seeker.
Held: . .
Cited – B v Germany ECJ 9-Nov-2010
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection – Article 12 – Exclusion from refugee status – Article 12(2)(b) and (c) – Notion of . .
Cited – B v Germany ECJ 9-Nov-2010
ECJ Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection – Article 12 – Exclusion from refugee status – Article 12(2)(b) and (c) – Notion of ‘serious non-political . .
Cited – Adan v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 6-Apr-1998
A fear of persecution which was justified only historically, was insufficient to justify an asylum claim. The applicant must show justification for contemporary fears. The applicant had been granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK, but wanted . .
Cited – W97/164 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 10-Jun-1998
Austlii (Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Australia) IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP – application for a protection visa – whether applicant excluded from protection under the Refugees Convention by reason of . .
Cited – Arquita v Minister for Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs 22-Dec-2000
Federal Court of Australia – MIGRATION – refugees – application for protection visa – whether serious reasons for considering commission of serious non-political crime outside country of refuge – application of Art 1F(b) of Convention Relating to . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gul, Regina v SC 23-Oct-2013
Mr Gul appealed against a dismissal of his appeal against his conviction for dissemination of terrorist publications contrary to section 2 of the 2006 Act. The Court was now asked as to the meaning of ‘terrorism’ in section 1 of the Terrorism Act . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.465934