[2024] UKUT 330 (AAC)

The appellant has made various submissions as set out in the index to the consolidated bundle. The most comprehensive are the ‘perfected grounds of appeal’ of 4 March 2024 (p462) and a skeleton argument dated 26 September 2024 drafted by Mr Bajwa KC. The DBS supplied a written submission dated 28 June 2024, drafted by counsel Mr Bayne, in response to the appeal (p489).

The case was heard on 3 October 2024 by remote video link by agreement. No evidence was called by either party. Both counsel made helpful oral submissions amplifying their written submissions. Mr Bajwa KC, having considered the DBS’s submissions, made a number of eminently sensible concessions about some of the grounds of appeal, which are referred to in our analysis below.

Shortly before the hearing Mr Bayne provided a further bundle of authorities relating to proportionality, bringing to our attention that the Upper Tribunal has recently described the proportionality test in a number of different ways. We are aware that a three-judge panel is to be convened to determine a case which involves proportionality (three-judge panels are convened where a case raises a question of law or special difficulty or an important point of principle or practice). Neither party invited me to adjourn the hearing to await the outcome of that case. Both were content that we should proceed to hear the case, and that if in our deliberations we were of the view that the outcome of the three-judge panel case may materially affect our ruling we would contemplate adjourning to await that case. In the event, and considering the overriding objective, we do not await that ruling. The legal approach appears clear from authorities as set out above, but our decision would not change if we had approached the decision de novo, or in the way urged upon us by DBS, or with an emphasis on irrationality. Further delay would not be in anybody’s interests.