[2024] UKUT 71 (AAC)

The question posed by s31, in the circumstances of this case, was: what effect would disclosure of the other “criteria” (or risk factors) used in the automated triage process in the government’s sham marriage referral and investigation scheme have on the operation of immigration controls, and/or the prevention or detection of crime? Would disclosure of those criteria be “likely” to “prejudice” those things, on the understanding of those terms set out in the case law, as summarised at paragraph 26 above? The question is one of evaluative judgement or opinion, rather than of “tangible” fact.

The FTT decision’s answer was clear from the first two sentences of [54]: in its opinion, real, actual and substantial prejudice “would” be likely; and the reasons for this opinion were compressed into the two sentences of [54] that follow.