Crown comments in the Ahmed Zaoui bail hearing could shake the whole legal basis for the security risk certificate issued against him.
Lost amid the drama of Mr Zaoui's release to live with Dominican friars was the key issue of security arguments.
The certificate issued by the Security Intelligence Servicealleges that the Algerian refugee is a threat to New Zealand's national security, but in the Supreme Court the Crown said he was not.
The Solicitor-General, Terence Arnold, QC, was quizzed at length by Dame Sian Elias and other judges about what the risks were.
Mr Arnold indicated that the main risks were his communicating and associating with others - including the "issuing of communiques" and "the function of leadership".
Justice Thomas Gault asked how Mr Zaoui's persistent communications in the past with people in Europe affected New Zealand security.
Mr Arnold said the threat to New Zealand was precisely the same as that to Belgium and Switzerland.
"This is the point at which New Zealand does have to recognise that it is part of the international community."
Justice Peter Blanchard put it to him that there was no suggestion violence might occur in New Zealand as a result of any activities Mr Zaoui might be involved in.
Mr Arnold replied after a long pause: "I think that's fair, Your Honour."
Mr Arnold said it would be quite misleading to portray the SIS concerns as simply being that New Zealand might be viewed as a soft touch: "There's much more to it than that.
"My submission is whatever arrangements are put in place for Mr Zaoui from now need to reflect the security concern that is expressed in the certificate.
"His presence here would attract others of security concern either directly to New Zealand or indirectly be encouraged to move to New Zealand as a safe haven."
Yesterday, law expert Dr Andrew Ladley, director of Victoria University's School of Government's institute of policy studies, said the Crown's comments needed careful scrutiny.
"A Crown admission that he is not a threat to New Zealand security, let me put it this way, puts in question the entire legal basis upon which he was being held and in future any restrictions on him under the Immigration Act."
