9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) gross and deplorable a delay. However that was not a matter gone into at the hearing before us. There may be some explanation, and I say no more about it. 182. The basis of the Secretary of State's certificate, issued under s.21 on 18 December 2001, was explained in his letter of the same date: "You are an active supporter of the Tunisian Fighting Group, a terrorist organisation with close links to Al Qaida. You have provided direct assistance to a number of active terrorists." At paragraph 133 of the open generic determination SIAC stated that the Secretary of State had identified the Tunisian Fighting Group ("TFG") as a "generally relevant" terrorist group. It seems that there was an issue in E's case as to its very existence. As to that SIAC entertained no doubt (paragraph 6 of the open specific judgment). The Secretary of State sought to demonstrate that the TFG had its origins in the Tunisian Islamic Front ("FIT"); its ultimate aim was the establishment of an Islamic State in Tunisia; both it and the FIT had links with Al Qa'eda. SIAC were satisfied that E was a member of the TFG and so had links with an international terrorist group, the TFG itself being an international terrorist organisation within the meaning of ATCSA. They acknowledged that their reasons rested largely on closed material, but stated (paragraph 10 of the open specific judgment): "We have… been careful only to rely on material which cannot in our judgment have an innocent explanation." 183. It was in E's case that the issue relating to evidence having been obtained by torture or other treatment in violation of ECHR Article 3 first arose. At a late stage in the hearing before us there were the beginnings of a disagreement between Mr Emmerson and Mr Burnett QC, leading counsel for the Secretary of State, as to precisely how this came about. I do not think it matters very much. I shall, of course, have to say something about the factual assumptions upon which the legal debate has proceeded, but I shall do that when I come to deal with the issue substantively. SIAC itself stated, at paragraph 3 of its open specific judgment in E's case: "Mr Emmerson did, however, raise a new point of substance in this appeal. He had in earlier cases submitted that if information obtained had been or may have been obtained by means of torture, the Commission should afford it no or very little weight. Before us he went further and submitted that information obtained by torture or by breaches of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was inadmissible." SIAC rejected this submission for reasons given in the open generic judgment, and I will come to that. B 184. B is an Algerian. It is not clear when he arrived in the United Kingdom. He had some dealings with the immigration authorities, and at length he made an asylum claim which was refused by the Secretary of State. His appeal was dismissed by the Adjudicator on 17 January 1996. He was detained pending removal. He made a further asylum claim. He was granted temporary release, was re-arrested and then released again. He served two short sentences of imprisonment for driving while disqualified and associated offences. 185. On 5 February 2002 the Secretary of State decided to make a deportation order against B, and also to certify him pursuant to ATCSA s.25. On the same day he also issued a certificate under ATCSA s.33 to the effect that B was not entitled to the protection of Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention because Article 1F or 33(2) applied to him. The Secretary of State's open case against him was that he had belonged to the GSPC since 1997 or 1998 having contacts with leading members of the GSPC in the United Kingdom, and in 2000 had played an important role in procuring telecommunications equipment and providing logistical support. The Secretary of State's assessment was that the equipment was for use by Chechen Mujahaddin extremists and the GSPC in Algeria. 186. B appealed to SIAC both against the s.25 certificate and the decision to deport him. However he chose not to attend the appeal hearing and the short statement he put in was cast in the most general terms. In http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 45/113