United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber Appeal Number: PA/03858/2017

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

Heard at Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 23 April 2018	On 20 June 2018

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEKIĆ

 

Between

M S K

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation:

 

For the Appellant: Mr K Smyth, Solicitor Advocate, Kesar & Co solicitors

For the Respondent: Ms Z Ahmed, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

 

 

Background and conclusions

1. This appeal comes before me following the grant of permission to the appellant by First-tier Tribunal Judge Hollingworth on 22 September 2017 in respect of the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Brewer who dismissed the appeal by way of a determination dated 12 June 2017.

 

2. The appellant is an Afghan national and it is accepted that he was born on 19 January 2004 and was aged 13 at the date of his hearing. He has been granted discretionary leave but challenges the decision of the respondent dated 7 April 2017 to refuse his claim for protection.

 

3. Several serious criticisms are made against the judge; mostly these pertain to his conduct at the hearing and towards the appellant.

 

4. When the matter first came before the Upper Tribunal, it was considered appropriate to refer the complaints to Judge Brewer and to invite him for his comments. This was done but the judge has failed to respond. The matter was therefore relisted and now comes before me.

 

5. The appellant was present at the hearing. I notified the parties of the steps that had been taken to obtain the judge's comments and the absence of a response. Ms Ahmed wished to read out the Presenting Officer's note on file to the court before matters proceeded further and I permitted her to do so. The record stated that the judge's questioning of the appellant was excessive and inappropriate. Given those observations, she indicated that she could not resist the appellant's application for a remittal. Mr Smyth confirmed he was content with that position.

 

6. I am grateful to both sides for their assistance. Fortunately, such a scenario is rare but that does not excuse the judge's conduct nor is it any consolation to the appellant who was, apparently, reduced to tears by the aggressive questioning. In such circumstances, and where the judge in question has not taken the opportunity to put forward his side, I have no option but to set aside the determination in its entirety and to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing before another judge of that Tribunal. No findings are preserved. Given the appellant's young age and vulnerability, it is hoped that the delay in scheduling a hearing will be minimal.

 

Decision

 

7. The First-tier Tribunal Judge made errors of law such that his decision must be set aside and re-made by another judge of that Tribunal at a date to be arranged.

 

Directions

 

8. No later than five working days prior to the resumed hearing, the appellant shall file and serve a skeleton argument and full statement unless this has already been done.

 

9. Any other documentary evidence relied on and which has not already been submitted must also be filed within the same time frame.

 

10. A hearing time of 2 hours shall be allocated as agreed by the parties and a Pushtu interpreter shall be arranged.

 

Anonymity

 

11. I continue the anonymity order made by the First-tier Tribunal.

 

 

 

Signed:

 

 

 

Dr R Kekić

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

23 April 2018