9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that C has a senior leadership role in the EIJ in the United Kingdom". They dismissed the s.25 appeal. 202. C had also appealed, on asylum and human rights grounds, against a decision of the Secretary of State to deport him. In that context SIAC considered and rejected a submission advanced by Mr Gill that there existed a free-standing statutory right of appeal to SIAC against the issue of a certificate under ATCSA s.33. This was the first part of the argument in C's case with which I indicated I would deal at this stage. The argument is plainly hopeless. Such a right of appeal could only be given by statute. So much I understood Mr Gill to accept. But there is no provision in ATCSA, SIACA, or elsewhere in the immigration legislation that is capable of being construed as conferring any such appeal right. There was of course a right of appeal against the decision to deport C: but none, distinctly, against the s.33 certificate. It was (and is) also submitted – and this is the second part of the argument with which I will deal at this stage – that Article 1F cannot be deployed to revoke C's refugee status, since once recognised as a refugee he can only lose the protection of the 1951 Convention through Article 32 (which I will not set out), and so the s.33 certificate is simply irrelevant on the facts of the case. But as SIAC held (open specific judgment, paragraphs 27 – 28) Article 33 applies to putative and recognised refugees alike, and Article 1F disqualifies a person from refugee status whether or not he has earlier been recognised as a refugee. Any other interpretation produces bizarre results which cannot have been intended by the drafters or the States Parties to the Convention. D 203. D is an Algerian. He applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on 5 March 1999 claiming that he had arrived here illegally on 27 February 1999. That application was refused on 13 February 2001. D's appeal to the Adjudicator had not been determined when on 17 December 2001 the Secretary of State issued a certificate in his case under ATCSA s.33. The following day he also issued a certificate under s.21 and a decision to deport D. 204. The Secretary of State's case before SIAC was that D was an active supporter of the GIA, used false documents, and was involved with other extremists whom the Secretary of State named. One of these was Djamel Beghal, to whom I shall have to refer further in light of a submission advanced by Mr Gill to the effect that at a late stage the Secretary of State unfairly changed his case. D gave evidence and was cross-examined. SIAC stated (open specific judgment, paragraph 10): "We regard D as a practised and accomplished liar. We do not believe his excuses, his claims to ignorance, his attempts to distance himself from other terrorist suspects, or his assertions that he has nothing to do with the GIA or other terrorist organisations, networks or activities." However SIAC at once recognised (paragraph 11) – obviously rightly – that merely to condemn D as not worthy of belief did not of itself make the Secretary of State's case. But they proceeded to reason as follows (paragraph 11): "[S]ome of the relationships, in particular that with Beghal, had a social content. But that was not all. Taken as a whole, the evidence we have seen is sufficient to support the Secretary of State's case that D's extensive contacts with those who were involved at various levels in terrorist planning and activity did not arise primarily or solely for social reasons: he had contact with these individuals because he was himself supporting international terrorism in various ways. As we note in the generic part of this determination, his association with the GIA would be formally sufficient to justify the certificate, but would not be 'within the derogation'. His support of the looser network of North African terrorists is, however, sufficient for both purposes. His appeal against the certificate is dismissed." 205. I indicated that I would deal now with Mr Gill's argument for D that at a late stage the Secretary of State unfairly changed his case. What is said is that the Secretary of State alleged for the first time in his final submissions in the closed hearing that D was a member of an international terrorist group described as the "Beghal group", which had not previously been identified as such in the evidence, and that no material was provided in the open case to explain how association with Beghal could be http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 49/113