Case No. UKUT-00448-(IAC)

of the crucial letters of introduction held by the assassins as ‘forgeries’ of those held by [the Appellant].” This ground is directly linked to two paragraphs of the FtT’s decision. The first [94], contains the following material passages: “ The letters of introduction constitute a very important part of the evidence …. These are letters found at the scene of the assassination and purport to be letters of introduction relating to ….. the assassins …. [Other exhibits] are letters of introduction found at the Appellant’s premises. There are differences between the two sets of letters …. [duly elaborated] …. A report from a forensic document examiner, prepared in the course of the criminal investigation, contained a conclusion that the letters found at the scene were not printed or copied on any machine linked to the Appellant and were probably not printed or copied on the same machine as the letters found at the Appellant’s home. The letters found at the scene were described by the Common Serjeant as ‘careful and elaborate forgeries of the letters that [the Appellant] created’. ” 42.The second paragraph of the FtT’s decision which, through this ground of appeal, the Secretary of State specifically attacks is [102]. Here the Tribunal states: “ The specific evidence of the Appellant’s involvement, as set out by DCI Dingemans , does not, as he accepts, implicate the Appellant directly in the conspiracy. The items found at the scene of the assassination fall short in this regard. ” The Tribunal then pronounces the uncontroversial finding that there is no forensic nexus between a series of items of evidence recovered from the scene of the murder and the Appellant. The Tribunal, having specifically rehearsed Mr Dingemans ’ opinion that the documents recovered from the scene were suggestive of direct knowledge of or involvement in the conspiracy on the part of the Appellant, continues: “ As with the letters of introduction, there is a gulf between, on the one hand, the items found at the Appellant’s home and business premises and the explanations in relation to them (which we deal with below) and, on the other hand, the items found at the scene, notwithstanding the fact that some contained details relating to the Appellant and the IOC. As Mr MacKenzie submitted, it is of very substantial importance that the letters of introduction found at the scene were forgeries of the items found in London . The extent of human agency in the reproduction of the letters of introduction, which included the altering of the dates and errors such as the Appellant’s name being misspelled, is simply unknown. ” This is followed by the finding, at [103]: “ …. We find that the inclusion of the Appellant’s details and those of the IOC in some of the items fall short as reliable evidence of the Appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy as a conscious and knowing agent. ” 43.The time devoted by both parties’ counsel to this ground of appeal comfortably eclipsed that consumed by the other two grounds together. Mr Auburn developed his argument with some energy and enterprise. In doing so, we consider that he strayed well beyond the boundaries imposed by the grant of permission to appeal. The framework of this appeal was determined by the terms of the three grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State and the decision of the permission Judge that each overcame the threshold of arguability. There was no application to amend the grounds. At times, counsel’s submissions roamed freely and widely. We, for our part, shall confine our determination of this ground to the content and contours authorised by the grant of permission to appeal. 44.It was at all times common ground that the versions of the two letters of introduction recovered during a search of the Appellant’s premises, while replicating the text of the equivalent documents recovered at the scene of the assassination, differ in a number of significant respects from the latter. The Tribunal noted these, with particularisation, in [94] of its decision. As appears from the last quoted passage, the Tribunal was also alert to, and took into account, the Appellant’s “explanations” concerning the letters. These were noted in [95] of its decision. In this context the Tribunal also considered the evidence of a witness, contained in a police statement and, correctly, observed that this supported the Appellant’s explanation.45.The Tribunal gave further consideration to this discrete issue in [104], making the following assessment: “ It is certainly true that the [witness’s] statement reveals that the Appellant made the approach for help but if the plot, sophisticated, carefully planned and well resourced, genuinely involved the Appellant, it is perhaps surprising that he would openly seek help, on the basis of his poor English, from [the witness] , who was in a position to tell the police exactly what he knew. ” The witness proceeded to do precisely that in the event. Next, the Tribunal considered the evidence of the police interviews, making the assessment that from the cessation of the Appellant’s stance of silence he provided – “ …. an account which, in all important respects, has remained his account to date. ” 46.The Tribunal’s characterisation of the letters of introduction recovered from the scene of the assassination as “forgeries” lies at the heart of this ground of appeal. The origins and evolution of the word “forgeries” are apparent from the following forensic tracing exercise: (i) The Appellant’s application to the Crown Court to have the charges against him dismissed involved an argument by his counsel that the aforementioned letters were “careful and elaborate forgeries of the letters that the [Appellant] created ….”: per the Common Serjeant - see [14] above. (ii) The Common Serjeant’s assessment was that the forgery involved “ backdating what was created in order to fit into a forged trail that had been created for [the assassins] in their passports, supported by the visas within them ”. (iii) The Common Serjeant , recognising that the Appellant had been the creator of the letters, stated that they were subsequently used as “ the template for the documentation that they [the assassins] were to forge ….. ” (iv) In [94] of its decision, the FtT quoted, accurately, the “ careful and elaborate forgeries ” passage from the ruling of the Common Serjeant . (v) In [102] of its decision, the FtT recorded the submission of Mr MacK enzie that the letters recovered from the scene were ‘ forgeries of the items found in London ’. In the same passage the Tribunal crafted the phrase ‘ the reproduction of the letters of introduction ’. 47.It is also of importance to trace how the Secretary of State’s case concerning the letters of introduction unfolded before the FtT: (i) It was contended on behalf of the Secretary of State, initially, that the two sets of letters were the same. (ii) The record of Mr Auburn’s closing submission to the FtT contains the following passage: “ These are different drafts – ‘forgery’ is a misnomer – assassins copy’ was not a forgery of A’s letter …. The different versions are simply plotter’s perfecting their story … Important issue is verifiability, ie when [the victim’s] security contact the IOC the story will stack up .” In a later passage, one finds the submission that the issue was not whether the Appellant personally had composed the letters found at the scene. Rather, the real issue was that of verifiability.48.The FtT clearly did not accept the Secretary of State’s case that the two sets of letters of introduction were different drafts. Rather, it evidently aligned itself with the Common Serjeant’s assessment – and accepted the submission on behalf of the Appellant – that the letters recovered from the scene were forgeries of those found at the Appellant’s premises in London. We consider that neither the Common Serjeant nor the FtT was, consciously, attributing any special or technical meaning to the word “forgeries”. This is particularly clear in the FtT’s further statement that the letters created by the Appellant had been the subject of subsequent human intervention giving rise to “reproduction” of them. We consider that in adopting the formula of the Common Serjeant, and, simultaneously, acceding to the submission of counsel for the Appellant, the FtT cannot be said to have erred in law in any recognisable way.49.Contrary to Mr Mackenzie’s submission, it is not clear to us from Mr Auburn’s skeleton argument at first instance that the Secretary of State was making the case that the two sets of letters were the same. Given the obvious and critical differences between the two sets, this case would have been manifestly unsustainable in any event. What is clear is that in closing submissions, Mr Auburn unequivocally espoused the appellation “drafts”, simultaneously characterising “forgery” a misnomer. While the FtT clearly adopted the language of forgery in its decision, we are satisfied that the terms “forgery” and “drafts” were used in a loose and non-technical sense. Furthermore, neither of these descriptions necessarily excluded the other. The FtT unequivocally held that the versions of the letter recovered from the scene of the assassination were