![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> YB (Allegations against adjudicator: Presidential note) Jamaica [2005] UKIAT 00029 (01 February 2005) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2005/00029.html Cite as: [2005] UKAIT 00029, [2005] UKIAT 29, [2005] UKIAT 00029 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
YB (Allegations against adjudicator: Presidential note) Jamaica
[2005] UKIAT 00029
Date of hearing: 17 January 2005
Date Determination notified: 01 February 2005
YB |
APPELLANT |
and |
|
Secretary of State for the Home Department | RESPONDENT |
08.03.2001 | claimant given one month's leave to enter |
14.05.2002 | arrested as overstayer and claims asylum |
18.06.2002 | asylum refused and notice of removal directions given |
09.10.2002 | first appeal to adjudicator heard |
02.12.2002 | decision issued: dismissed |
14.02.2003 | leave to appeal given |
18/27.02.2003 | claimant commits four offences of supplying crack cocaine |
30.06.2003 | convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment |
17.07.2003 | first appeal to Tribunal heard |
22.08.2003 | decision issued: remitted for fresh hearing |
02.10.2003 | notice of intention to deport (for public good) |
23.03.2004 | second appeal to adjudicator heard (against both decisions) |
29.04.2004 | decision issued: dismissed |
• an affidavit or statement of truth by counsel (not Mr Lourdes, but a Mr Shamin) who had appeared before the adjudicator, attaching any notes to support the account of what had happened; or
• if the claim could not be made out, an affidavit or statement by the draftsman of the grounds of appeal, explaining how it came to be made.
On 3 September 2004 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant's solicitors, reminding them of the directions: on 14 September they wrote back, explaining that counsel was unable to support the claim which had been made, and the person who had made it did not work for them any more. On 19 October they sent in a statement by that person, a Mr . He explained that he had not meant to make any claim that the adjudicator had refused to hear the witness: the witness had arrived late, and, for whatever reason, it had been counsel who decided not to call him. The writer said the point he had been trying to make was simply that hearing the oral evidence of Mr Clarke would have resulted in a fairer decision by the adjudicator.
If the allegation is very general, and more in the way of a throwaway line, it is likely to be dealt with on the application for permission to appeal as wholly unsubstantiated, bearing in mind the inherent seriousness of such an allegation.
If the allegation is more particularised in the grounds of appeal, it may be treated as arguable. "Particularised" means not only that it should have some detail to support the point, but it should be apparent that the allegation is being made or supported by someone who was arguably in a position to know what happened. If that is not the case, then the applicant can be said not to have shown that the case was reasonably arguable.
This is not to say that the grounds should be accompanied by a witness statement, nor that if the grounds are signed by someone who was not there, that they must fail. They must however go beyond a vague general assertion, and show something of significance which the party was willing and able to support. They should also show that there was the prospect of evidence being obtained for the appeal.
Appeal dismissed
John Freeman
(approved for electronic distribution)