RP000852015

We are satisfied in actual risk terms there is no real risk of repetition of the same or a similar offence and we are satisfied therefore that the presumption of the appellant as a danger to the community has been rebutted. This is not to minimise the serious nature of her crime but the provisions are not just based on the serious nature of a crime but also on the actual danger posed by the appellant and the future risk.

I consider that to be an accurate and lawful application of the necessary test. It follows that the Tribunal did not err in law in finding that the appellant had rebutted the Section 72 presumption that has constituted a danger to the community. There is no challenge to the Tribunal's findings [28]; the appellant had not rebutted the presumption that she was convicted of a particularly serious crime.

The second ground of appeal challenges those findings of the Tribunal but, in my opinion, the challenge amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the detailed findings of the Tribunal which, as I have noted, was supported by reference to relevant evidence. Contrary to what is stated in the grounds, it was not for the appellant to prove that she would be destitute outside her home area of DRC but that it would be unduly harsh to expect to her live outside her home area (see Januzi [2006] UKHL 5 ).