9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) s6(1) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 ("the 1997 Act"), as explained by Lord Woolf CJ in paragraph 12 of his judgment in M -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 2 All ER 863. As he went on to say in paragraph 13: "In this situation individuals who appeal to SIAC are undoubtedly under a grave disadvantage. So far as it is possible this disadvantage should be avoided, or, if it cannot be avoided, minimised. However, the unfairness involved can be necessary because of the interests of national security." 287. Where it is necessary to have a closed hearing, SIAC will normally need to produce two judgments, one of which covers all the open material, and the other of which is limited to the closed material. 288. Each of the ten appellants in these appeals was detained in late 2001 or early 2002 pursuant to a certificate under s21 of the 2001 Act issued by the Secretary of State. Two of the appellants, Jamal Ajouaou and F thereafter left the UK (for Morocco and France respectively) as they were entitled to do. The other eight appellants, A, G, Mahmoud Abu Rideh, E, B, H, C and D remain in custody. Each of the ten appellants exercised his right of appeal to SIAC against his certification. Eight of the ten appellants were granted anonymity by SIAC. All ten appeals were dismissed; in the cases of Ajouaou and F, SIAC held that, because they had left the UK, their s21 certification lapsed and SIAC had no jurisdiction to determine their appeals. 289. There is one so-called generic judgment which applies to five of the appellants. It runs to 309 paragraphs and is dated 29th October 2003. In that judgment, SIAC (Ouseley J, Mr C Ockleton and Mr J Chester) considered the issues of law, principle and inference which have been debated before us, and anxiously analysed the factual and opinion evidence put before it, and the arguments arising from them. SIAC also prepared a number of open and closed judgments in relation to the individual appeals, and we have in particular been referred to the judgment of SIAC (Collins J, Mr Ockleton and Mr J Daly) relating to F, which runs to 25 paragraphs. 290. The issues raised on these appeals concern the proper approach to be adopted by SIAC in relation to the determination of appeals it entertains. The resolution of those issues depends in part on the proper construction of the 2001 Act, but in some cases on the rules governing the procedure of SIAC, the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act"), the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") and the Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT"). The issues also have to be resolved in light of two earlier decisions of this court, namely A v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 335 and M -v- Secretary of State. 291. The points of principle raised on these appeals in relation to the 2001 Act appear to me to be as follows: Issues of construction of the 2001 Act, namely: 0. the ambit of s25(2)(a) and (b); 1. whether it is open to a person against whom a s21 certificate was issued to appeal to SIAC if his certificate has been revoked; 2. the test to be applied by SIAC for assessing whether there are "reasonable grounds" within the meaning of s25(2); 3. the burden of proof as to any specific allegations of fact relied on by the Secretary of State on an appeal to SIAC; 4. the meanings of "international terrorist group", "member", "supports" and "assists" in s21; 5. the duty to investigate the prospect of removal to another country under s23. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 73/113