[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

In addition, insofar as the Applicant alleges procedural irregularity, which appears to be the main basis of his challenge, the statutory means to address such is through an application to the Tribunal for reconsideration: see rule 37(2)(d) of the 2008 Rules. It is well-established that judicial review is a last resort and should not be used where are alternative statutory means of redress: see e.g. R(Glencore Energy UK Ltd) v Revenue and Customers Commissioners [2017] 4 WLR 213 at [54-56] (“Glencore”). The claim for judicial review should therefore be refused on that ground alone.

The Applicant argues that “some other procedural irregularity in the proceedings” (in rule 37(2)(d) of the 2008 Rules) does not extend to “a representative’s failure to put allegations in cross-examination”. As to that:

that contention misunderstands the role of the CICA presenting officer, whose role is not to put allegations to an appellant

in any event, there was no “allegation” that needed to be put to him by CICA in cross-examination. His case was that he did know he was the victim of a crime. Therefore that case needed to be considered and assessed, but there was no “allegation” to put to him

there is no basis for a construction of the Rules that “some other procedural irregularity” only extends to certain procedural irregularities and not others. The purpose of the provision is to enable a Tribunal to respond to, and if necessary correct, a procedural failing without having to expend the time and resources of the Upper Tribunal, and parties, in applying to the Upper Tribunal for a judicial review. Had the Applicant applied to the Tribunal to reconsider, it could have considered what he said had gone wrong in the hearing and responded to that or listed a further short hearing to address that soon after the application was made.