Conclusions on PIBT
Conclusions on PIBT
Under the heading The Public Interest Test, the FTT decision said that it “generally accept[ed] and adopt[ed]” the reasoning in the IC decision notice ([57]). It referred to a “a very strong public interest” in protecting the ability of public authorities to enforce the law and protect society from the impact of crime. It said that the public interest in detecting human trafficking was “very strong” ([58]). It stated at [60] that the prejudice likely to be caused to the immigration system outweighed there being “some” public interest in knowing what the redacted “criteria” are.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal under reference EA/2022/0228, issued on 1 February 2023, did not involve the making of an error on
- The information request that led to the IC decision notice and its context
- HO’s response to the information request
- The IC decision notice
- The exemption in s31 ( Law enforcement )
- The FTT hearing and the conclusions in the FTT decision
- Decision on likelihood of prejudice
- Conclusions on PIBT
- Conclusions on PLP’s “further information” request
- Grounds of appeal
- Upper Tribunal’s analysis
- Erred in relying on ‘insufficient’ evidence?
- Erred in not taking PLP’s evidence into account?
- Inadequate reasons?
- Grounds related to PIBT
- Ground b.ii
- Ground b.iii
- Ground c.: PLP’s “further information” request
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 71 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)