T v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. The central issue was whether the appellant fell within the exclusion in Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention as a person who had committed a "serious non-political crime" prior to admission. The court confirmed that the political character of an offence requires (i) a political purpose (for example to change government or its policy) and (ii) a sufficiently close and direct link between that purpose and the criminal act.

The Lords rejected tests based on proportionality, remoteness and elaborate causation as unsuitable for routine asylum decision-making and adopted an objective test focused on the mode and targets of violence: indiscriminate attacks intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of the public (terrorism) fall outside the political exception and therefore attract exclusion under Article 1F(b). Applying this test to the facts (involvement in an airport bombing which killed ten innocent persons and an arms raid) the court concluded the offences were terrorist/serious non-political crimes and dismissal of the asylum claim was justified.

Background and facts:

• The appellant, an Algerian national and alleged member of the Islamic Salvation Front (F.I.S.), entered the United Kingdom illegally and sought asylum. He admitted involvement in violent acts in Algeria, notably a bombing at an airport that killed ten people and participation in an arms raid in which one person died.

Procedural posture:

• The Secretary of State refused asylum and directed removal. The appellant appealed to a Special Adjudicator, then to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, and to the Court of Appeal (the Court dismissed the appeal on 3 November 1994). The appellant appealed to the House of Lords.

Nature of the application: The appellant sought protection from refoulement under the Refugee Convention (non‑return to Algeria). The legal question was whether Article 1F(b) excluded him from refugee protection because he had committed a "serious non-political crime".

Issues framed:

1. Whether the appellant's admitted crimes had a political character (so as to avoid exclusion under Article 1F(b));
2. What legal test should be applied to distinguish political from serious non-political crimes in asylum cases (incidence/causation tests, proportionality, remoteness, or a terrorism-based test); and
3. Application of the chosen test to the facts of this case.

Court’s reasoning:

• The Lords reviewed authority from extradition and asylum cases and international materials. They accepted the twofold formulation for political character: a political purpose and a sufficiently close and direct link between act and purpose. They expressed concern about tests relying on remoteness, causation or proportionality as impractical or importing subjective parochial values.
• Instead the court preferred an objective focus on the method and target of the offence. Acts that are terrorist in character — that is, criminal acts directed against a state or public and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of persons or the public, particularly indiscriminate attacks on civilians — are properly regarded as outside the political exception and therefore as "serious non-political crimes" under Article 1F(b).
• Applying that approach to the Tribunal’s findings (airport bombing causing ten deaths and an arms raid), the Lords concluded the airport bombing in particular was terrorist in character, too remote from any legitimate political objective and therefore excluded under Article 1F(b). The appeal was dismissed.

Wider implications: The decision emphasises that indiscriminate violence intended to terrorise the public is not sheltered by the political exception in the Refugee Convention; it warns against importing ill‑defined proportionality or remoteness tests in asylum determinations.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that Article 1F(b) excludes from refugee protection those responsible for terrorist conduct: an offence must have a political purpose and a sufficiently close and direct link between that purpose and the act. Indiscriminate attacks intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the public are not political crimes for Convention purposes. The airport bombing and related conduct fell within Article 1F(b), so the appellant was excluded from protection.

Special Adjudicator (appeal dismissed: findings that appellant was involved in planning an airport bombing and an arms raid); Immigration Appeal Tribunal (appeal dismissed); Court of Appeal (appeal dismissed; order of 3 November 1994); House of Lords ([1996] UKHL 8) — appeal dismissed and Court of Appeal order affirmed.