This Appeal
5. The Appellant’s letters in the immediate aftermath of the hearing at first instance stimulated the generation of some further evidence. First, as part of its investigation into the Appellant’s complaint, the UKVI obtained a written response from its PO . Second, the Upper Tribunal P rincipal Resident Judge procured a response from the FtT Judge. Each was to the effect that nothing untoward or improper had occurred at the hearing. It was also highlighted that the Appellant was represented by Counsel, who made no protest or intervention. 6. Having considered the accounts provided by the Appellant, the PO and the Judge, it seems to me that there is no substantial di s pute about the particulars of the matters raised by the Appellant. However, recalling the terms of the grant of permission to appeal, I can find no basis for concluding that the Appellant and his wife were “prevented from giving evidence by the Judge” . This is simply not made out. The second limb of the grant of permission is that they were “…
bullied by the presenting officer and … this was tolerated by the Judge” . This has two elements. As regards the first, I can ascertain no basis for a finding of bullying. It is reasonable to conclude that conduct of this kind would have been the subject of vocal objection by the Appellant’s representative. As regards the second on the Appellant’s own account, the Judge was prepared to intervene when considered appropriate by him. Viewed in the round and realistically, I consider that the Appellant was not anticipating the adversarial element of the hearing and the vigorous , sometimes intrusive questioning which this can entail. 7. While i t is clear from both the terms and the timing of the Appellant’s letters that the conduct of the hearing at first instance was a cause of substantial concern and upset , I must balance his perceptions, genuinely held to my mind , with the assessment in the last preceding paragraph and the factor of legal representation. I must further take into account the Appellant’s acknowledgement that there was at least one proactive judicial intervention in response to an objectionable question. 8. The ultimate question is whether the conduct of the hearing blighted the Appellant’s ability to put forward his case or to respond to the challenge made to his case. I have concluded, on balance, that there was no such impairment. However, I would add that, as highlighted in the recently reported decision of