[2024] UKUT 22 (AAC)

The first ground of appeal is the apparent bias of the DTC. The DTC had presided over the 2021 PI and while he did not hold fronting proved, he had been critical of the 2^nd and 3^rd appellants and of James Strathearn. The DTC had been asked to recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. By declining to do so, he had erred in law.

The second ground of appeal concerns the status of James Strathearn at the PI. It is submitted that he had variously been treated by the OTC as a witness, party and potential shadow director of CHL. The first three appellants understood that James Strathearn had been sent copies of the briefs and other documents produced by the OTC, productions lodged by the appellants and the statements of Johanna Dunne and Gordon Dunne. It was submitted that James Strathearn was, in fact, a witness. It is submitted that the DTC’s inconsistent treatment of James Strathearn was unfair and contravened the rules of natural justice and the appellants’ rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (“the ECHR”). By treating James Strathearn as a party and allowing him sight of the brief, productions and statements, he had an opportunity to tailor his evidence. His partner, Hana Simpson, also had such an opportunity. This resulted in the appellants receiving an unfair hearing contrary to the principles of natural justice and contravening their rights under Article 6(1) of the ECHR.