![FT/EA/2024/0427 - [2025] UKFTT 01126 (GRC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_kmf8vDg.png){kind=logo}
FT/EA/2024/0427 - [2025] UKFTT 01126 (GRC)
Fecha: 24-Sep-2025
The Appellant’s reply to the Commissioner’s response
The Appellant’s reply to the Commissioner’s response
In his reply dated 12 December 2024, the Appellant stated the following:
“My reply is that the respondent does not resist my contention that “…pushback at sea…” is now an abandoned policy. There is, on the balance, being the correct test, no possibility that pushback at sea (the English Channel) will be implemented in the future. Pushback is illegal, the British Government would never act illegally….
There is clearly a very strong public interest in the information being released bearing in mind that pushback would endanger life, which is why the policy was abandoned. I do not buy into the mosaic effect, generic nonsense…..
I am not interested in similar tactics, I am only interested in pushback”.
- 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