9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) 367. When considering whether there are reasonable grounds under s25(2)(a), SIAC must approach the evidence with great care, bearing in mind, in an appellant's favour, the draconian consequences of upholding a s21 certificate, but also bearing in mind the difficulty which would normally be involved in establishing that an appellant is a terrorist or a threat. It appears to me, from reading the very full consideration given by SIAC to the evidence adduced by and against each of the appellants, and the care with which the evidence was assessed and the explanation for the conclusions arrived at, that it cannot be suggested that SIAC did not adopt an appropriate approach to each of the appeals. Indeed, as mentioned already, I believe that SIAC performed its difficult and worrying task in an exemplary fashion. The burden of proof 368. It is also suggested by the appellants that, when assessing the factual material put forward by the Secretary of State, SIAC should decide, in relation to each allegation of fact, whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Secretary of State has established its correctness, and, only if so satisfied, should SIAC take that fact into account. If SIAC, when carrying out its role under s25(2), decides to take a particular fact into account as a fact, then I think that point is well made. Indeed, it would be difficult to hold otherwise in light of the observations in Rehman, where, in relation to a not dissimilar, but somewhat differently worded, provision, s3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971, Lord Slynn said at paragraph 22: "when specific acts which have already occurred are relied on, fairness requires that they should be proved to the civil standard of proof". 369. However, as Lord Hoffmann said in the same case at paragraph 56: "[T]he whole concept of a standard of proof is not particularly helpful in a case such as the present. In a criminal or civil trial in which the issue is whether a given event happened, it is sensible to say that one is sure that it did, or that one thinks it more likely than not that it did. But the question in the present case is not whether a given event happened but the extent of future risk. This depends on an evaluation of the evidence of the appellant's conduct against a broad range of facts with which they may interact. The question of whether the risk to national security is sufficient to justify the appellant's deportation cannot be answered by taking each allegation seriatim and deciding whether it has been established to some standard of proof. It is a question of evaluation and judgment." 370. In these circumstances, I think that there are two problems with the appellants' criticism that SIAC failed to apply a proper standard of proof. The first is that, in deciding whether there are, as a matter of fact, reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief, SIAC is not necessarily concerned with primary facts, and, to that extent, there is no need to establish a primary fact on the balance of probabilities. For instance, subject to consideration of its reliability (which may raise all sorts of factors) a newspaper report relating to the activities of an appellant may be taken into account by the Secretary of State under s21 or by SIAC under s25. In such a case it is not necessary for SIAC to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the reported facts are true; it would merely need to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, as to the existence of the newspaper report. (I should emphasise that SIAC may, even if so satisfied, give no or little weight to the contents of the newspaper report, if it thought it right to do so.) Secondly, when considering whether there are reasonable grounds for the relevant belief or suspicion, SIAC need not, as I have sought to explain, be concerned about satisfying itself that, on the balance of probabilities, the belief for suspicion is justified, or that it shares the belief or suspicion. It is merely concerned with deciding whether there are reasonable grounds for such belief or suspicion. 371. The question of whether someone is an international terrorist can be said to be a matter of fact, whereas the question of whether he is a threat to national security is itself a matter of assessment. However, the question of whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting a person is a terrorist and believing he is a threat to national security is a question of assessment. The meanings of certain expressions in s21 of the 2001 Act 372. The appellants' complaints about SIAC's interpretation of a number of expressions in s21 of the 2001 Act, involve a general criticism of the approach of SIAC generally, which to a substantial extent I have http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 85/113