PART 1
Before
The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey, President
The Hon. Mr Justice Supperstone,
sitting as a Judge
of the Upper Tribunal
PART 2
Heard at Field House, London
On 09 May 2017
Date of promulgation: 22 August 2017
Before
The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey, President
Upper Tribunal Judge Blum
Between
Antonio Troitino Arranz
Appellant
and
Secretary Of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation
For the Appellant: Ms L Dubinsky, of counsel, instructed by Birnberg Pierce Solicitors For the Respondent: Ms J Anderson, of counsel, instructed by the Government Legal Department (i)
The burden of proving that a person represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society under Regulation 21(5)(c) of the EEA Regulations rests on the Secretary of State. (ii)
The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
(iii)
Membership of an organisation proscribed under the laws of a foreign country does not without more satisfy the aforementioned test.
(iv)
The “Bouchereau” exception is no longer good law: CS (Morocco) applied.
Preface
This, the composite judgment of the Upper Tribunal, is in two parts. Part 1 contains the error of law decision promulgated on 22 February 2017. Part 2 is the remade determination of this appeal.
DECISION
PART 1
- PART 1
- Introduction
- The Statutory Framework
- The Secretary of State’s Decision
- organised crime
- The European Arrest Warrant
- current
- Del Rio Prada v Spain
- Spanish Judicial Authority v Arranz (No 3)
- The Appellant’s Witness Statements
- The Operative Extradition Decision
- itself
- The Principal Grounds of Appeal
- deduced
- The Burden of Proof Issue
- Insofar as the appeal relies upon the 2006 Regulations, the burden is also on the Appellant, the standard being the balance of probabilities
- this
- might
- Other Grounds of Appeal
- (i) Misunderstanding The Evidence
- E v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- E & R
- (ii) Misunderstanding the Second Divisional Court’s Decision
- Paragraph 27
- Paragraph 28
- Paragraph 60
- Kandola
- Spanish Judicial Authority v Arranz
- Vanda Puceviciene
- persecution
- (iv) The Article 6 ECHR Issue
- R (EM Eritrea) v SSHD
- flagrant breach
- R (Ullah) v SSHD
- Conclusion
- PART 2
- The Evidence of Professor Silke
- The Battle Lines Drawn
- in itself
- General
- JS (Sudan)
- The ‘Colectivo’ Issue
- Risk of Reoffending
- The Appellant’s Terrorist Criminality and ETA
- from this perspective,
- Del Rio Prada
- could
- The Reluctant Witness
- Marchon v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
- Nazli
- Ex parte Marchon
- Bouchereau
- Omnibus Conclusion
