Mr Justice Silber, sitting at London\’s High Court, ruled the Iraqi national, known as AE for legal reasons, had taken part in terrorist activities and knowledge from such courses could be used to make explosives.
However, AE said his purpose for studying the courses was to continue his medical studies.
The judge dismissed AE\’s appeal against Home Secretary Jacqui Smith\’s decision last September refusing to permit him to undertake the AS-level courses in the 2008-9 academic year at a regional college.
He had acted on the basis that the Home Secretary had reasonable grounds to believe AE had received terrorist training and had taken part in terrorist activities.
So, we\’ve not proved that he\’s taken part in terrorist activities. At least, not to the point that he has been charged, let alone convicted of any such.
Even so, the Home Secretary is allowed to dictate what subjects he may or may not study? On the grounds that he might use them in the activities which we haven\’t proved that he is involved with?
The bloke wants to be a doctor, and he can\’t study chemistry?
This is consistent with being innocent until proven guilty in what manner?
And what other powers does the Home Secretary have to limit who may study or do what on such hearsay?