Case No. UKUT-00294-(IAC)

105. The various assessments and conclusions set forth above are made without reference to the Appellant’s written evidence. Ms Anderson properly highlighted that this has not been tested by cross examination at any stage. We further take into account that it is more likely to be self-serving than not. The two particular features of the Appellant’s conduct, in this discrete context, are his failure to give evidence at any stage of these proceedings and his earlier refusal to engage with the Home Office proposal that he be interviewed. We have considered all of the evidence bearing on these two issues. Having done so, we do not consider that any inference adverse to the Appellant is appropriate. In particular, in the language of section 8(3)(e) of the 2004 Act, we are not persuaded that this behaviour falls within “ … designed or likely to conceal information or to mislead ”. In our judgment, this exacting test is not satisfied. This assessment is based on our evaluation of the evidence as a whole. It is further informed by the factors of strategy (generally), litigation tactics and legal advice. The evidence, expressly or by inference, establishes that all of these factors formed part of this discrete equation. 106. We also take into account Ms Andersons’ submission relating to what is not contained in the Appellant’s witness statement: no acceptance that he was a terrorist who perpetrated horrendous offences that are inherently unjustifiable; no acceptance of culpability; no expression of apology or genuine remorse; and no acknowledgement of breaching United Kingdom laws in the matter of the forged identity documents. This submission is well made. However, it does not deflect us from our evaluative assessments and conclusions above. Furthermore, protestations of this kind would have been scrupulously analysed by the Tribunal through the “possible self-serving” lens and would have been unlikely to attract any significant weight.