Bugdacay v SSHD
[1987] AC 514, at 522-533) wherein reposes the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations. We confine ourselves to these observations, while acknowledging that further consideration of this issue by the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal will probably be required. (iv)& (v) We grant the Appellant’s application to extend his grounds of appeal to encompass asserted infringements of Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR, without further prescription, save to emphasise what we have said in (ii) above. (vi) The Appellant’s grounds may also be extended to incorporate an asserted breach of section 55 of the 2009 Act.
DECISION AND DIRECTIONS
13. We decide and direct as follows: (i)
This appeal is hereby remitted to a differently constituted FtT for the purpose of a fresh hearing and decision. (ii)
We preserve none of the findings contained in the determination of the FtT promulgated on 15 February 2012. In thus deciding, we draw attention to the evolution in the Secretary of State’s position noted in [12](i) above. (iii)
The Appellant’s solicitors will serve on the Respondent a new grounds of appeal pleading, together with a new indexed and paginated appeal bundle and a draft statement of agreed facts on and file same with the FtT not later than 01 September 2015. (iv)
The Appellant’s skeleton argument for hearing will be served and filed not later than 01 October 2015. (v)
The Respondent’s replying skeleton argument and response to the Appellant’s draft statement of agreed facts will be served and filed not later than 01 November 2015. (vi)
The listing before the FtT will proceed on the first available date thereafter, with expedition highly desirable. 14. We conclude with the observation that, upon remittal, issues relating to the FtT’s newly acquired power under Rule 13 of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2015 could conceivably arise. By this Rule the FtT is empowered to prohibit the disclosure or publication of documents and information. There are sundry kindred powers. We are aware that by its decision of 31 July 2015 the Administrative Court has acceded to the application by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association for permission to challenge this rule by judicial review: see [2015] EWHC 2297 (Admin). 15. Given the unusual features of this case and the potential for further difficult legal and procedural issues arising, the Secretary of State should give careful consideration to instructing Counsel.
THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER