Conclusions on procedural fairness
Conclusions on procedural fairness
Under rule 5 of the FtT Rules, the Tribunal had very broad case management powers, including a broad discretion as to how to determine applications for postponements and adjournments. Generally, the Upper Tribunal is slow to interfere with a tribunal’s exercise of its discretion in such matters. However, such decisions can sometimes give rise to significant procedural unfairness, and in such circumstances intervention by the Upper Tribunal may be appropriate.
I am satisfied that this is such a case because the refusal of the applications to postpone or adjourn the hearing resulted in OO being denied the opportunity to seek to instruct a consultant forensic psychiatrist (a ‘man/woman of science’) whose opinion may have differed from the opinions of Dr Brown and Dr Baruah, and because it also denied him the opportunity to question those key witnesses. This meant that there was an imbalance in favour of the detaining authority, and this imbalance rendered the proceedings unfair.
- Heading
- This decision may be made public (rule 14(7) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI No 2698))
- Factual and procedural background
- The 13 July 2022 hearing
- Events between the 13 July 2022 hearing and the 29 November 2022 hearing
- The 29 November 2022 hearing
- The Permission stage
- The hearing of the substantive appeal before the Upper Tribunal
- The relevant law and procedure rules
- Discussion
- Equality of arms
- Opportunity to cross-examine witnesses relied upon
- Conclusions on procedural fairness
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 190 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)