[2024] UKUT 170 (AAC)

Finally, as regards Ground 1, Mr Rawlinson contended at the oral hearing that there were several contradictory findings in the FTT’s decision which amounted to errors of law. The following two examples will suffice to show why this submission lacked traction. First, the FTT found that the Appellant experienced sunburn during his 2004/05 tour of Afghanistan, despite much of the period being in the Afghan winter (paragraph 13.6). It was suggested that the panel took a contradictory approach in paragraph 14.7 dealing with his last 2017/18 tour. On any fair reading there is no inconsistency in terms of the effect of winter sun exposure; rather, the panel was pointing to the very different nature of the Appellant’s roles during these two respective periods. Secondly, Mr Rawlinson argued there was a contradiction between the fourth bullet point under ‘What we do not know’, relating to latency (paragraph 16.5), taken with the panel’s finding about latency at paragraph 18.7, and the positive finding of latency in paragraph 19. This critique is akin to counting the number of angels on the head of a pin and is addressed more fully below in the context of Ground 3.

Mr Rawlinson’s remaining submissions on Ground 1 in large part comprised a commentary on specific passages in the FTT hearing transcript. On closer analysis these observations typically amounted to a thinly disguised invitation to the Upper Tribunal to take a different view of the factual evidence and in particular to accord different weight to particular items of evidence as compared with the FTT’s approach. However, to do so would involve the Upper Tribunal impermissibly trespassing on the fact-finding function of the specialist first instance tribunal.