[2025] UKUT 167 (AAC)

The oral hearing of this appeal took a morning session (from 10.30 until 13.00). For most of that time (approximately 2 hours) we heard sworn evidence from the Appellant, who was subject to extensive questioning by Mr Wills and cross-examination by Ms Hartley, as well as to questions from one of our specialist members. We therefore had ample opportunity to assess the Appellant’s oral evidence, albeit we accept it was given in a stressful environment. We also recognise that the Appellant may not have been speaking in his first language. That said, there were only a handful of occasions when the Appellant (quite reasonably) had asked for a question to be repeated as he had not followed its meaning.

Be all that as it may, the Appellant’s oral evidence was less than impressive. Ms Hartley described it as “inconsistent” and “evasive”. It was certainly muddled at times and there were several occasions on which the Appellant either could not, or would not, give a straight ‘yes or no’ answer to a direct question. In particular, the Appellant was very vague about the circumstances surrounding the incident at the birthday party in June 2022, meaning that on the balance of probabilities we attached greater weight to the evidence from the police statements in the summer of 2023, being closer in point of time.