9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) (9) Subsection (8) shall not prevent an appeal under section 7 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (appeal on point of law). …" 167. I should fill out three cross-references. First ATCSA s.1(5) mentions the definition of "terrorism" given in s.1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is in these terms: "1(1) In this Act 'terrorism' means the use or threat of action where—(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it—(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. (3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied. (4) In this section—(a) 'action' includes action outside the United Kingdom, (b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated, (c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and (d) 'the government' means the government of the United Kingdom, of a part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom." The second cross-reference, in ATCSA ss.27(1) and 33(9), is to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 ("SIACA"). S.7 creates the relevant jurisdiction of this court, as follows: "Where [SIAC] has made a final determination of an appeal, any party to an appeal may bring a further appeal to the appropriate appeal court on any question of law material to that determination." An appeal under s.7 is the only means by which a decision of SIAC may be questioned in legal proceedings: SIACA s.1 as amended by ATCSA s.35. Having regard to a point arising in the appeals of F and Ajouaou, I should also set out SIACA s.7A(4): "A pending appeal to the Commission is to be treated as abandoned if the appellant leaves the United Kingdom." 168. The third cross-reference is to be found in ATCSA s.33(1)(a), and is to Articles 1F and 33 of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. These provisions are material to Mr Gill's specific argument in C which I will address when I come to C's facts. I will set out the provisions below, where I collect other international materials which are relevant in the appeals. 169. Specific procedure rules have been made for the conduct of SIAC appeals: the Special Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2003. Amongst other things they make provision for the appointment of a special advocate to represent the interests of an appellant at hearings at which "closed material" is being canvassed, and from which for reasons of security the appellant himself and his conventional representative are excluded: see Rules 34 ff. Such hearings took place before SIAC in these cases, and two of the special advocates, Mr Blake QC and Miss Whipple, have been present in court at the appeals before us. There is another rule, however, that is directly relevant to the issue before us concerning evidence obtained in violation of ECHR Article 3. Rule 44(3) provides: "The Commission may receive evidence that would not be admissible in a court of law." http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 40/113