Case No. UKUT-00294-(IAC)

85. The submissions of Ms Anderson on behalf of the Secretary of State placed considerable emphasis on the Appellant’s protracted membership of the proscribed terrorist organisation ETA and the atrocious loss of life perpetrated by him: see [6] supra . We recall that the murders and other terrorist offences perpetuated by the Appellant or in which he participated spanned the period 1983 – 1987, culminating in his conviction of multiple offences on 07 November 1989. Ms Anderson also drew attention to the various strands of evidence underpinning the EAW giving rise to the Appellant’s extradition. She further highlighted the Appellant’s use of forged identity documents in order to enter the United Kingdom and his continued possession of such materials, exposed at the time of his arrest, together with the allegation that the Appellant was harbouring a fugitive from justice, LS – ( supra ). 86. At the core of Ms Andersons’ submissions lay the contention that the Appellant has demonstrated by his personal conduct that he is willing and able to breach United Kingdom laws by his possession and use of forged documents with the intention of deceiving the authorities and aiding an ETA fugitive to evade justice. Building on this foundation, Ms Anderson submitted that there are reasonable grounds to expect that if the Appellant considered it in his interests to breach United Kingdom laws again, he would do so. The Appellant is, she submitted, a person who considers himself not bound by the rule of law. Ms Anderson contrasted the Appellant with other ETA prisoners who, rather than fleeing, remained in Spain and attempted to resolve their “Parot doctrine” issues there. The gravamen of Ms Andersons’ argument appears in the following extract from her helpful written submissions: “ There is a clear risk of further resort to false documents if the Appellant wished to evade the UK authorities on any return in the future and the harm from possession and use of forged identity documents is unarguably significant and sufficient to meet the limited requirement in the EEA context where only the basic rights apply. ” In this context Ms Anderson also canvasses the possibility that the Appellant would continue to provide assistance to ETA fugitives to evade the United Kingdom authorities. 87. Ms Anderson further submitted that belonging to or assisting a proscribed organisation