of which one member had to have held high judicial office, the second had to have been the chief adjudicator or a legally qualified member of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, the third would ordinarily be someone with experience of national security matters. The 1997 statute gave the individual who would have had the right to appeal against a deportation order but for section 15() a right to appeal to the Commission and the Commission itself the authority to review the Secretary of State's decision on the law and the facts as well as the question whether the discretion should have been exercised differently There was a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on any question of law material to'the Commissions determination. In addition, the statute provided for the appointment of a special advocate who could represent the appellant if parts of the proceedings before the Commission took place as closed sessions because it was considered necessary to keep information confidential In Rehman's case, the Commission rejected the argument that the question of what could constitute a threat to national security was a matter for the Secretary of State to decide. It said that the definition of national security was a question of law which it had jurisdiction to decide. It then found that the Secretary of State had interpreted the phrase national security'too widely since, properly understood, Rehman's alleged activities did not affect the United Kingdom's national security. National security, according to the Commission, included only activity which" targeted the United Kingdom or United Kingdom citizens wherever they may be, or activities against a foreign government which 'might take reprisals'against the United Kingdom. In addition, it found that the specific allegations did not meet the test it deemed appropriate in such cases, which it termed a test of a high civil 66 of which one member had to have held high judicial office, the second had to have been the chief adjudicator or a legally qualified member of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, while the third would ordinarily be someone with experience of national security matters. The 1997 statute gave the individual who would have had the right to appeal against a deportation order but for section 15(3) a right to appeal to the Commission and the Commission itself the authority to review the Secretary of State’s decision on the law and the facts as well as the question whether the discretion should have been exercised differently. There was a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on ‘any question of law material to’ the Commission’s determination. In addition, the statute provided for the appointment of a special advocate who could represent the appellant if parts of the proceedings before the Commission took place as closed sessions because it was considered necessary to keep information confidential. In Rehman’s case, the Commission rejected the argument that the question of what could constitute a threat to national security was a matter for the Secretary of State to decide. It said that the definition of national security was a question of law which it had jurisdiction to decide. It then found that the Secretary of State had interpreted the phrase ‘national security’ too widely since, properly understood, Rehman’s alleged activities did not affect the United Kingdom’s national security. National security, according to the Commission, included only activity which ‘targeted the United Kingdom’ or United Kingdom citizens ‘wherever they may be’, or activities against a foreign government which ‘might take reprisals’ against the United Kingdom. In addition, it found that the specific allegations did not meet the test it deemed appropriate in such cases, which it termed a test of a ‘high civil