Case No. UKUT-00294-(IAC)

96. The battleground upon which the hearing of this appeal ultimately unfolded was shaped mainly by the evidence of Professor Andrew Silke (supra). The expert credentials of this witness were not in dispute. In his evidence, both written and oral, he developed an abstract theory in circumstances in which he had neither interviewed nor attempted to assess the Appellant. The central pillar of this theory, insofar as it can be reduced to a single sentence, is that in a post-conflict situation a politically motivated offender who has previously committed heinous crimes is unlikely to reoffend in a comparable way or at all. Professor Silke’s opinion is encapsulated in the following extracts from his report: “Overall, the available elements suggests strongly that reoffending rates for released terrorist prisoners is [sic] low. The terrorist reoffending rates are certainly much lower than the levels typically seen with ordinary, non-terrorist prisoners. This trend applies both in the context of releases where a related conflict is still ongoing and where the conflict has ended or entered a significant peace process. It is important to acknowledge, however, that some reoffending does occur, although the level of reoffending is typically much lower than we would normally expect with most released prisoners.” 97. Based on the above analysis we accept Professor Silke’s evidence. We juxtapose it with the expert evidence of Mr Woodworth which, in the history of the extradition and immigration appeals forming the backgrounds to this hearing, has previously been rehearsed in extenso . We consider it unnecessary to repeat any part of these previous exercises. Rather it suffices to highlight that Mr Woodworth’s evidence, all of it in written form and none of it challenged by any competing expert evidence, provides significant complementary ballast to the thesis of Professor Silke, which we have accepted.