Case No. UKUT-00450(IAC)

at page 596 to 597 that the principles for the reception of oral evidence in judicial review are the following, and the relevant passage then ensues, one is likely to construe that passage as rehearsing applicable principles which were not necessarily intended to be exhaustive nor indeed have that effect.(70) We have considered the written submission of Mr Armstrong on behalf of the applicant Mohammad Mohibullah and the very helpful response of Mr Kovats on behalf of the Respondent. These challenges have been organic. The organic dimension of the proceedings may not yet be at a conclusion and we are particularly conscious that this is the second set of combined hearings which are likely to have an impact on a substantial quantity of other cases.(71) Adopting that approach and bearing in mind that without the aid of a crystal ball we cannot hope to predict precisely the course which the admission of oral evidence is likely to take. We propose to accede to the application. We shall not do so in rigid terms but any particular type of evidence adduced will be received de bene esse. Ultimately that might well prove to be the correct approach. However, we shall receive the evidence and in the unusual way shall then decide following such argument as may be received what weight should properly and rationally be attached to it.(72) We must make abundantly clear that as in previous instances where oral evidence has been adduced in the forum of judicial review it will have a very narrow focus. Witnesses will not be giving evidence at large and in an open-ended manner and we shall identify clearly with Mr Armstrong in advance of each witness the proposed scope of any examination-in-chief.