9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) already considered. The criticism is that SIAC did not give enough weight, when construing Part 4 of the 2001 Act, to the fact that it permitted a very substantial interference with the fundamental rights of individuals in respect of whom a certificate was issued under s21. As already indicated, I accept, without hesitation, that, when considering any argument in relation to Part 4 of the 2001 Act, this is a very important factor. Furthermore, as was emphasised by Lord Woolf in paragraph 42 of his judgment in A -v- Secretary of State, the limits of the derogation effected by the Derogation Order must be carefully defined, because, otherwise, the relevant law becomes too imprecise and lacks clarity and accessibility. 373. However, it is, as also mentioned, equally important to bear in mind, when considering any argument in relation to Part 4 of the 2001 Act, that it is designed to deal with a threat to national security which, in the view of the executive and the legislature, justifies this exceptional legislation. Furthermore, one must also bear in mind the inevitable difficulties which exist (and are impliedly recognised by the way in which ss21 and 25 of the 2001 Act are expressed) in finding evidence in relation to an individual's link with Al-Qa'eda and the possible risk he poses in the future to national security. Indeed, the very fact that, as the Schedule to the Derogation Order says, the powers under Part 4 of the 2001 are only to be invoked when there is insufficient evidence to justify the bringing of criminal proceedings, serves to emphasise the difficulties. 374. Particularly once it is accepted, as the appellants accept (inevitably, in light of the decision of this court in A -v- Secretary of State) that Part 4 of the 2001 Act is compatible with ECHR, criticisms of the clarity of the terminology of Part 4 of the 2001 Act, or the interpretation given to that terminology by SIAC, cannot be judged in abstract terms, or solely by reference to the factors upon which the appellants rely. It has also to be judged by reference to the perceived threat to national security and what is practical and feasible in the context of the clear purpose of the legislation. 375. So far as the word "group" in the expression "international terrorist group" is concerned, it appears to me to have a wide and imprecise meaning. As I have already mentioned, the effect of the derogation, as discussed in A -v- Home Secretary, must mean that the word "group" is limited to "Al-Qa'eda and its associated networks (and no one else)". 376. SIAC said in paragraph 113 of its generic judgment: "A group for these purposes may be informal, ad hoc, formed for temporary expediency; the effect of the [2001] Act draconian though it is, should not be approach as if it were only intended to apply to those terrorist groups whose affairs are conducted with some formality and constitutionalism. We do not consider that a group can only exist if it is shown to have a formal structure capable of membership. A group in this context is no more than an association of some sort between individuals to pursue one or more aims; the lone terrorist is excluded, 'group' is a word of very wide meaning. It covers the concept of networks." 377. While it can be dangerous to seek to define a word or expression in a statute, I consider that those observations cannot be faulted. They can be said to be vague. However, the word "group", particularly in the context of Part 4 of the 2001 Act, does appear to be a word of wide meaning, and when one considers the nature of terrorist groups, and of Al-Qa'eda in particular, it seems positively unreal to think that the legislature can have had a relatively narrow meaning in mind. It would be inappropriate to consider the many other references in SIAC's judgment to the meaning of the word "group". Because of the different facts and arguments on each appeal, SIAC inevitably expressed itself in slightly different ways in different places in the generic judgment, but in my view, there is no basis for criticising its approach or conclusions. Thus, in paragraph 125, SIAC made reference to: "The ideology which Osama bin Laden has developed and which has united the individuals and groups in a way which does not undermine the individuals, but works with them to further their common objectives against a common enemy is set out in the Declaration of Jihad by Osama bin Laden against the US of 23rd August 1996." I see nothing wrong with that. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 86/113