Case No. UKUT-00137-(IAC)

14. The words “serious reasons for considering” in Article 1F(c) have an autonomous meaning. In Al-Sirri the Supreme Court gave authoritative guidance on the meaning and application of the test. In particular the court said that it was unnecessary to import domestic standards of proof into the question as the circumstances of refugee claims and the nature of evidence available is so variable. The court said that if the decision maker is satisfied that it was more likely than not that the applicant has not committed the crime or has not been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes of the United Nations it is difficult to see how there could be serious reasons for considering that he had done so. As Miss Giovanetti pointed out, that observation, which is carefully worded, does not mean that the opposite is true. 15. It is the next sentence which potentially gives rise to some confusion if not read in context. “The reality is that there are unlikely to be sufficiently serious reasons for considering the applicant to be guilty unless the decision maker can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he is”. 16. We do not accept Mr Mackenzie’s submission that the Supreme Court in effect decided that the standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities, for the following reasons. First, in the next sentence the court says “But the task of the decision maker is to apply the words of the Convention in the particular case”. Secondly, while the court notes the reality that there are unlikely to be sufficiently serious reasons for considering the applicant to be guilty unless the decision maker can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he is, the formulation leaves open the possibility that in a particular case the test in Article 1F(c) may be met even if the civil standard of proof is not met. While that may seem a theoretical possibility, the cases cited by the court at paragraph 73 and 74 show that other jurisdictions have adopted such an approach. 17. AH is cited for the proposition that a panel of the Upper Tribunal determined the civil standard of proof applied. However, despite the misleading head note at paragraph 2 we do not consider that this is what the UT determined. It does not appear from our reading of the case or the proceedings in the Court of Appeal (