![[2024] UKUT 71 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The FTT hearing and the conclusions in the FTT decision
The FTT hearing and the conclusions in the FTT decision
The FTT decision followed a hearing (by video) on 6 January 2023. PLP was represented at that hearing, but IC was not. Two witnesses (both put forward by PLP) provided witness statements in advance of the FTT hearing: Reuben Binns, an associate professor of human-centred computing at the department of computer science, University of Oxford; and Joseph Tomlinson, a professor of public law at the University of York.
At [15], the FTT decision cited DWP v IC and FZ [2014] UKUT 0334 (AAC), which said at [26]: “It is well-established that the prejudice must be real, actual or of substance, and that in this context “likely” means a very significant and weighty chance of prejudice (see R (Lord) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2073 (Admin) at paragraph [106])”.
- 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