FT/EA/2024/0427 - [2025] UKFTT 01126 (GRC)
Fecha: 24-Sep-2025
Ancillary issues
Ancillary issues
Recusal
Prior to the hearing, the Appellant wrote to the Tribunal to ask that the appeal not be listed in front of any members of the panel who heard case FT/EA/2022/0355. The Appellant was informed that any such application amounted to an application for Judge Buckley (who sat on the previous case) to recuse herself, and that he would need to submit such application by way of form GRC5. The Appellant did not make any formal application via form GRC5 for recusal. However, Judge Buckley considered of her own motion whether she should recuse herself and decided that she should not do so. She concluded that a reasonable independent observer in full possession of the facts would not consider that there was a real possibility of bias. Each case is determined on the evidence and on its merits and, in accordance with the judicial oath, Judge Buckley can be expected to approach the issues with an objective judicial mind. There is nothing in the previous decision which might throw doubt on Judge Buckley’s ability to do so.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Factual background
- The relevant information held in response to the request
- The request and responses
- Decision notice
- Grounds of Appeal
- The response of the Commissioner
- The Appellant’s reply to the Commissioner’s response
- The response on behalf of the Home Office (Second Respondent)
- Legal Framework
- The public interest balance
- The role of the Tribunal
- Issues
- Evidence
- Discussions and conclusions
- Would disclosure of the requested material prejudice or be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime?
- Would disclosure of the requested material prejudice or be likely to prejudice the operation of the immigration controls?
- Public interest balance
- Section 42 of FOIA
- Ancillary issues
- Gist
- Conclusions