AC-2024-LON-001764 - [2025] EWHC 2355 (Admin)

I shall turn first to the application to admit the expert report. Professor Utley is Professor of Operational Research at University College London. The report is dated 8 October 2024.

In their grounds of challenge, the Claimants contend that the report applies independent mathematical modelling to the terms of the September 2024 policy in order to show the extent to which LFR is permitted. In reliance on Professor Utley’s modelling, the Claimants contend that the extent of the places where, and the people who, may be subject to the intrusion of LFR is so broad that the policy provides no meaningful restraints on the exercise of police powers. They deploy Professor Utley’s models to advance the claim that, in the absence of meaningful restraints, the policy does not have the quality of law under the Convention.

In writing, Ms Proops accepted that Professor Utley’s evidence is closely inter-woven into the Claimants’ pleaded grounds of challenge. Nevertheless, she submitted in writing that the claim raises issues of law that are for the court alone to decide with no need for expert evidence. She submitted in writing that the report should be excluded because it is not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings (see CPR 35.1).

I put to Ms Proops that I had granted permission to apply for judicial review on grounds that relied on Professor Utley’s evidence. I expressed concern that any requirement on the Claimants to forego reliance on expert evidence would undermine the scope of the grant of permission, which the Defendant had not resisted. After reflecting on the court’s concerns, Ms Proops diverged from her written position and did not submit orally that the report should be excluded. I will order that the report be considered de bene esse at the hearing of the claim.