SIAC: No matter which way you look at it … you still lose
By Aisha Maniar
In late May, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) made a ruling on appeals brought by five of the Pakistani students who were arrested in the failed “Operation Pathway” anti-terrorism raid in March 2009 and whose deportation on national security grounds was then sought by the Home Secretary.
Since then, the following events have occured:
Abdul Wahab Khan: A week after the SIAC judgment, he sought leave to appeal under the SIAC Procedure Rules 2003, however this was refused on 4 June with Justice Mitting stating that the appeal had no “realistic grounds for success”. He then appealed against this judgment to the Court of Appeal but this was also refused in August.
Abid Naseer: Following the May 2010 judgment that he could not be removed from the country he was placed under control order-style restrictions at an unknown location and electronically tagged. Although having “won” his appeal against deportation, he is appealing the lack of disclosure made for the national security risk assessment which underpins the whole case. As in the case of Abdul Wahab Khan, any appeal against the national security assessment can only be made on the disclosed parts of the judgment, which mainly consist of e-mails and items picked up at the residences of the Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan.
As a result of a US extradition request, Abid Naseer was arrested on 7 July returned to prision. The US has asserted that Abid Nasser is a suspected Al Qaeda operative plotting to use a destructive device. He will have an extradition hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 5 November.
Ahmed Faraz Khan: Also placed under control order style retrictions on movement and electronically tagged after the May 2010 judgement. Shortly after Abid Naseer’s extradition arrest in July, Ahmed Faraz Khan voluntarily returned to Pakistan later that same month. The Daily Telegraph newspaper has reported that Ahmed Khan’s father had urged him to return since the May ruling. A Home Office spokesman is quoted as stating “We are pleased that Ahmad Faraz Khan has decided to return to Pakistan. The court agreed that he was involved in terrorism, and we do not want him in the UK. We have held all along that it would be safe for him to return to Pakistan”. (Source: Daily Telegraph, 19 July 2010).
