Secondly, Lord Hoffman said that the Commission could reject the Home Secretarys opinion on the ground that it was one which no reasonable minister advising the Crown could in the circumstances reasonably have held. Thirdly, he said that an appeal to the "Commission may turn upon issues which at no point lie within the exclusive province of the executive. His example was the question whether deporting someone would infringe his rights under article 3 of the European Contention of Human rights and Fundamental Freedom.s because there was a substantial risk that he would suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Lord Hoffman said that the European jurisprudence makes it clear that whether deportation is in the interests of national security is irrelevant to rights under article 3. If there is a danger of torture, the Government must find some other way of dealing with a hreat to national security. Whether a sufficient risk exists is a question of evaluation and prediction based on evidence. In answering such a question, the executive enjoys no constitutional prerogative. 9 Lord Hoffman closed his judgment with this remarkable passag Postscnipt-I wrote this speech some three months before the recent events in New York and Washington. They are a reminder that in matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security. It is not only that the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters. It is also that such decisions, with serious potential results for the community, require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic Relman Hl 140. 549 Secondly, Lord Hoffman said that the Commission could reject the Home Secretary's opinion on the ground that it was ‘one which no reasonable minister advising the Crown could in the circumstances reasonably have held’. Thirdly, he said that an appeal to the ‘Commission may turn upon issues which at no point lie within the exclusive province of the executive’. His example was the question whether deporting someone would infringe his rights under article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms because there was a substantial risk that he would suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Lord Hoffman said that the ‘European jurisprudence makes it clear that whether deportation is in the interests of national security is irrelevant to rights under article 3. If there is a danger of torture, the Government must find some other way of dealing with a threat to national security. Whether a sufficient risk exists is a question of evaluation and prediction based on evidence. In answering such a question, the executive enjoys no constitutional prerogative.’9 Lord Hoffman closed his judgment with this remarkable passage: Postscript – I wrote this speech some three months before the recent events in New York and Washington. They are a reminder that in matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security. It is not only that the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters. It is also that such decisions, with serious potential results for the community, require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic 9 Rehman HL, 140, ¶ 54