Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman

In national-security deportation cases, a threat need not arise from conduct targeted at the United Kingdom or its citizens. Supporting terrorism against another state may create direct or indirect adverse repercussions for United Kingdom security. A real possibility of such repercussions is sufficient; their likelihood is relevant when balancing the risk against the effect of deportation on the individual.

The grounds in section 15(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 are alternatives, but may overlap. SIAC must determine law and fact, while giving considerable weight to the Executive's national-security policy. Where danger rather than proved misconduct is relied on, SIAC must make a global assessment of the material.

The Secretary of State decided to deport a Pakistani national on the ground that his presence was not conducive to the public good in the interests of national security. He alleged that the respondent supported an Islamic terrorist organisation operating in the Indian subcontinent.

SIAC allowed the respondent's appeal on 7 September 1999. It adopted a narrow definition of national security, requiring activity to be targeted at the United Kingdom, its government, people or citizens. It also found that the allegations had not been established to a high civil standard.

The Secretary of State appealed on questions of law. The central issues were the proper scope of national security, SIAC's fact-finding approach, and the adequacy of its reasons.

1. The appeal was allowed and remitted to SIAC. In a joint judgment, the Court held that SIAC had adopted an unlawfully narrow approach to national security. It was wrong to require the conduct relied on to be targeted at the United Kingdom or its citizens.

2. In a terrorism case, national security may be affected by conduct directed abroad. The relevant repercussions on United Kingdom security may be direct or indirect. A real possibility of adverse repercussions is enough at the stage of identifying a danger; the degree of likelihood matters when the Secretary of State balances that danger against the consequences of deportation for the individual. The Court approved the wider approach in Raghbit Singh [1996] Imm AR 507.

3. The three grounds in section 15(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 are alternatives, but they can overlap. Terrorist activity directed against another state may affect relations with that state and also threaten national security. The Government may treat the promotion of terrorism against any state as contrary to the United Kingdom's security interests.

4. Under section 4(1) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, SIAC determines issues of law and fact and reviews the exercise of discretion. It must nevertheless give considerable weight to the Executive's assessment of national-security policy. A high civil standard was appropriate for specific allegations of serious misconduct. But where the case is that a person is a danger to national security, SIAC must assess the material globally. The cumulative effect may establish danger although no individual act is proved to that high degree of probability.

5. SIAC had adequately complied with rule 23(1) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 1998. A single disclosed decision was proper where it gave sufficient reasons without revealing information contrary to the public interest. The separate complaint about the conduct of the SIAC hearing was not pressed.

• Court of Appeal: Allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and remitted the case to SIAC for redetermination, applying the correct approach to national security: [2000] EWCA Civ 168.
• Special Immigration Appeals Commission: On 7 September 1999, allowed the respondent's appeal against the proposed deportation order. Its narrow approach to national security and its overall assessment were held flawed.