Case No. UKUT-00162-(IAC)

[2008] EWCA Civ 190, that the FtT failed to take account of “ an evolution in the SSHD’s policy ”. Two observations are appropriate: (a) The suggestion that MG and VC was wrongly decided is bare and unparticularised. (b) There is no attempt to explain how the FtT’s asserted failure to take into account the “ evolution in the SSHD’s policy ” constitutes an error of law. To this I would add that, in any event, government policies relating to how legislation is to be implemented or operated, a paradigm example being how discretionary statutory powers will normally be exercised and the criteria which will dictate their exercise, have no bearing on the construction of the legislation concerned. The construction of legislation is a pure question of law. 13. The conclusion that the Secretary of State’s application for permission to appeal is non-compliant with the decision of this Tribunal in