[2023] UKUT 245 (AAC)

Ground 7 argues that the First-tier Tribunal’s conclusion on the scope of the Appellant’s request, i.e. that it was limited to documents used to prepare the questions for the interviews and notes of the interviews, was not a conclusion that was open to it, given the way that the Appellant expressed the requests.

The Appellant made two distinct requests: the first for a copy of the Report, and the second for documents and notes relating to the interviews (see §11 above). He later attempted to clarify the scope of his request (see §12 above).

The Tribunal said in the FtT Decision:

“38.

The tribunal find that the 47 documents identified by HfH, and now included in Mr Martin-Clark’s submissions for disclosure are not within the scope of his request and not part of this appeal. They were all created after the report was completed. Mr Martin-Clark both in his request and then in clarification of that request stated, “the documents we were seeking were those used to prepare the questions for our interviews as well as the notes of what took place during them. HfH have identified this period as between June and September 2014. There are a further 27 documents, which it is submitted fall outside the scope of the request because they were not considered by RSP in the preparation of questions for interview. The tribunal accepts that these documents are outside the scope of the request and were not used to prepare the questions for interview…”

While I am satisfied that the Tribunal was entitled to find the 47 documents which post-dated the Report to be outside the scope of the request, its conclusion that the other 27 documents fell outside the scope of the request is more problematic. However, because I have decided to set the Tribunal’s decision aside and to remit it to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing on other grounds, any error that might have been made in this regard will be subsumed into the re-hearing. The panel of the First-tier Tribunal hearing the remitted appeal will make its own findings on the scope of the requests. I therefore decline to rule on Ground 7 now as it is unnecessary for me to do so.