Case No. UKUT-00448-(IAC)

, amounts to organising a terrorist act. Careful consideration has been given to whether the evidence against you amounts to serious reasons for considering that you conspired to commit the murder …. The evidence that has been included in this consideration is that which was available to the criminal court when you were charged with conspiracy to murder [ASM] . Additionally, available circumstantial evidence has been included in this consideration. ” (k) The decision continues: “ The evidence contained in the attached Case Research and Analysis Report has been considered and its evidence and conclusions support the conclusions set out in this letter. ” (l) There follows a recitation of various items of documentary evidence: documents found in the possession of the assassins at the scene of the murder, which included in particular certain letters containing the Appellant’s particulars and prima facie linking him with a purported journalistic exercise, the object whereof was direct access to ASM; evidence of the police examination of the Appellant’s computer following his arrest on 23 October 2001; other documents found at the Appellant’s home at this stage; the Appellant’s statements to the police and the records of his police interviews. (m) Next, the decision maker notes the Appellant’s admission that he provided documentation to ASM’s assassins, who posed as journalists and his claim that he did so innocently without knowledge of the murder plot. The Appellant further claimed that the operation involved the creation of a broadcasting arm, Arab News International, of his organisation, the Islamic Observation Centre (“IOC”). This would provide the organisation with both news dissemination capacity and some profit. In return, the Appellant would provide the assumed journalists with letters of introduction and identity cards from IOC. (n) The decision maker notes that the Appellant was entirely passive in matters of broadcasting and news dissemination subsequently, thereby undermining the credibility of his explanation. The Appellant’s evident failure to check the credentials of the persons concerned is also highlighted. In addition, the Appellant’s failure to provide an explanation for a letter dated approximately one month preceding the murder requesting that he “ … get rid of all the letters which I sent you previously because you are aware of the circumstances ” is underlined, together with his continued assistance to the person concerned subsequently. Also highlighted was the Appellant’s failure to mention certain email exchanges during interview, indicative of the deliberate withholding of information concerning his involvement in the alleged murder conspiracy. (o) The decision maker then draws attention to the Appellant’s alleged failure to avail himself of opportunities to account for his conduct and the documents found in his possession and to answer the evidence against him, in particular by failing to give evidence at the initial tribunal hearing and refusing to attend a proposed interview with the Home Office. 7.The case against the Appellant is encapsulated in the following passage: “ As such it is considered that you deliberately provided documents for individuals posing as journalists to gain access to [ASM] . It is considered that your knowledge that they were not genuine journalists yet wanted to gain access to him means that you were aware that they wished to cause him harm. Therefore, it is considered that you conspired with others to murder [ASM].” The decision maker then considers evidence of the Appellant’s conduct in the publication and distribution of texts supporting terrorist. Attention is also drawn to the discovery in the Appellant’s home of a substantial quantity of press articles concerned an American military base in Saudi Arabia which was bombed in 1996, together with documents relating to two suspects which included passports and photographs, coupled with the Appellant’s refusal to answer questions about these documents during his police interview and to account for aerial photographs of an oil well in California and envelopes addressed to California and Texas, giving rise to a negative inference. Furthermore, he failed to account for the discovery at his home of military manuals and related documents, giving rise to the negative inference that he had in his possession material relating to terrorism for a sinister purpose. In addition, the decision alleged that the Appellant’s associates include the leadership of Gama Al Islamiya, a proscribed terrorist organisation and that through the IOC platform he defended one of those convicted in the United States of seditious conspiracy in relation to the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.8.The decision expresses the following conclusion: “ With all the evidence considered, for the above reasons there are serious reasons for considering that you have committed an act contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations and therefore you are excluded from a grant of refugee status as you do not qualify under Article 1F(c). ” This is followed by an adverse assessment of the Appellant’s credibility under the auspices of section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004. The decision maker made two further conclusions, namely that the principal decision did not entail any infringement of the Appellant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR and that discretionary leave was not considered appropriate.