[2024] UKUT 191 (AAC)

This second ground of appeal posits that the Tribunal’s failure to invite submissions from the Appellant on whether the CBT sessions he had undertaken amounted to “formal psychological treatment” constituted procedural unfairness. However, this assumes that the phrase in question carries some technical meaning that needed to be explored. For the reasons discussed above, that is a false premise. In addition, the appropriate adjective to be attributed to the CBT sessions was immaterial, given that the Tribunal’s primary focus had to be on what type(s) of future treatment remained relevant to assessing the question of permanence.