Case No. UKUT-00448-(IAC)

5.On 30 April 1994, upon arrival in the United Kingdom, the Appellant claimed asylum. His application was, ultimately, refused on 11 October 2000. By a supplementary decision dated 31 March 2004 the original decision was affirmed. This was followed by a fresh decision dated 05 December 2006. The ensuing six years were occupied by proceedings before various courts and tribunals.6.The current, operative decision of the Secretary of State is contained in a letter dated 10 January 2014. This detailed letter is susceptible to the following breakdown: (a) The Appellant claimed that while in Egypt he was involved in Islamic charities with a view to implementing Sharia Law and establishing an Islamic regime in Egypt . This included public demonstrations and he was detained periodically. (b) In 1993 he was accused of the attempted murder of the Egyptian Prime Minister. This was the impetus for his flight to the United Kingdom . (c) The basis of the Appellant’s claim for asylum is his fear that if repatriated to Egypt he will be murdered by the regime. (d) On 29 October 2001 he was charged with conspiracy to murder the leader of the “Afghan Northern Alliance” (whom we shall call “ASM”), who had been killed in Afghanistan on 09 September 2001, which charge was withdrawn some months later. (e) The decision continues: “ It has therefore been considered whether the act of conspiracy to murder [ASM] was an act that attacked the very basis of the international community’s co-existence, whether it had an international dimension and whether the crime was capable of affecting international peace, security and peaceful relations between states. This has been assessed in light of the international repercussions of the murder. ” (f) ASM was the established leader of the anti-Taleban forces in Afghanistan and his murder was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, a proscribed terrorist group which has been held responsible for the terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom on 11 September 2001. (g) Since the late 1990s, Al-Qaeda has been considered “ the most infamous worldwide terrorist organisation ”. (h) ASM was a towering figure in the war between the Taleban and the Northern Alliance : “ It is considered that his elimination from [this conflict] had a significant impact on the conflict and on the course of the war. The terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001 and the subsequent involvement of the US in the war demonstrate not only the international impact of the conflict but, in the elimination of the most prominent anti-Taleban leader, the international impact of his murder. Therefore the event of the murder of [ASM] had a significant international dimension. The background information indicates that the impact was that it was more difficult for the US to inflict a decisive defeat against Taleban throughout Afghanistan in the absence of the unifying force and military capability of [ASM].” (i) The above is the preface to the following conclusion: “ It is therefore considered that the murder of [ASM] was an act of terrorism of such gravity and international impact, committed by a terrorist group of worldwide notoriety, that it was clearly against the principles and purpose of the United Nations outlined under Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention, as interpreted in the judgment of the Supreme Court. ” (j) The decision then discusses the Appellant’s “ alleged role ” in the murder in question: “ It is noted that you have been accused of providing a letter of introduction to the perpetrators of the murder of [ASM] . It is considered that this allegation,