Case No. UKUT-00294-(IAC)

v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 1378 that the burden of proof is not important in our resolution of this appeal. We do not agree, for the basic reason that the primary facts are very much in issue. The central factual issue is that of the Appellant’s threatened reoffending at a prescribed level in the United Kingdom. This is keenly contested. 91. On the other hand, we derive some assistance from JS (Sudan) on the issue of evaluative judgment. By virtue of the terms of regulation 21(5)(c) of the EEA Regulations, the task of the Tribunal is to make a predictive evaluative assessment of future events based on the relevant factual matrix. This matrix must be constituted by the Appellant’s personal conduct. Drawing the strands together, the elements of the Appellant’s personal conduct under scrutiny are his previous activities as an active ETA member; his convictions in Spain in respect of appalling terrorist offences; his post-release interaction with the Colectivo; his use of forged identity documents to facilitate his entry into the United Kingdom; his occupation of a Colectivo house with another ETA member in this jurisdiction; and his continuing possession of forged identity documents at the time of his arrest. These, properly analysed, are the building blocks of the Secretary of State’s case against the Appellant. It is trite that they must be considered in unison. 92. Next, we pose the question of whether the Regulation 21 (5) (c) test is satisfied by any of the other elements identified in [90] above, singly or in combination. While we shall consider each, by virtue of Ms Anderson’s submissions the main focus is on the Appellant’s use of forged identity documents for the purpose of travelling to and entering the United Kingdom and his continuing possession of documents of this nature when apprehended by the police some considerable time later. In agreement with Ms Andersons’ submission, we take as our starting point the truism that immigration document fraud is an offence of some gravity, being in conflict with the maintenance of firm immigration control and the economic interests of society and, in some instances, having the potential to threaten public order and national security. The question is whether the Appellant’s demonstrated past use and continuing possession of forged identity documents, considered in isolation or in tandem with the other ingredients identified above, satisfies the statutory test. 93. We shall now address seriatim what we consider to be the central issues.