Resiling from the rule of law? In Secretary of State r Rebman, ' the House of Lords dealt with the following issue. Rehman was a Pakistani national with temporary leave to stay in the United Kingdom. The security service had determined that he was involved with an Islamic terrorist organization and that, while it was unlikely that he would ever commit acts of violence in the United Kingdom, his activities were intended to further the cause of a terrorist organization abroad. On that basis the secretary of state ordered that rehman be deported In terms of Section 15()of the Immigration Act 1971, Rehman was deprived of any right to appeal against such an order because the ground of the decision was that his deportatio conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for reasons of a political nature Prior to 1997, there had existed what Lord Woolf in the Court of Appeal described as a non-statutory advisory procedure which allowed the deportee to appear before three advisors'to make representations to them and the three then advised the secretary of State as to whether he should adhere to his decision In ChabalrUk, the European Court of Human Rights held that the advisory penal did not give an effective remedy in terms of article 13 of the European Commention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.s as it was not a '. The government responded with a statute in 1997 which established the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, a three person panel 32002 1 All ER 123, hereafter Rebman HI 42000 3 A ER 778, at 782, hereafter Rehman AC 5( 1996)23 EHRR 413, hereafter Chahal5 Resiling from the rule of law? In Secretary of State v Rehman, 3 the House of Lords dealt with the following issue. Rehman was a Pakistani national with temporary leave to stay in the United Kingdom. The security service had determined that he was involved with an Islamic terrorist organization and that, while it was unlikely that he would ever commit acts of violence in the United Kingdom, his activities were intended to further the cause of a terrorist organization abroad. On that basis, the Secretary of State ordered that Rehman be deported. In terms of Section 15(3) of the Immigration Act 1971, Rehman was deprived of any right to appeal against such an order because the ‘ground of the decision was that his deportation is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for reasons of a political nature.’ Prior to 1997, there had existed what Lord Woolf in the Court of Appeal described as a ‘non-statutory advisory procedure’ which allowed the deportee to appear before ‘three advisors’ to make representations to them and the three then advised the Secretary of State as to whether he should adhere to his decision.4 In Chahal v UK, 5 the European Court of Human Rights held that the advisory penal did not give an ‘effective remedy’ in terms of article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as it was not a ‘court’. The government responded with a statute in 1997 which established the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, a three person panel 3 [2002] 1 All ER 123, hereafter Rehman HL. 4 [2000] 3 All ER 778, at 782, hereafter Rehman AC. 5 (1996) 23 EHRR 413, hereafter Chahal