Case No. UKUT-00295-(IAC)

2. Before the FtT, counsel representing the Appellant sought to withdraw his client’s appeal against the decision of the Respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the “Secretary of State”), whereby the application for asylum of the Appellant, a national of Vietnam now aged 13 years, was refused. The assembled evidence is sufficiently satisfactory and in its key aspects uncontroversial to enable the following outline of events in the FtT to be formulated: (a) As indicated, the Appellant, a minor then aged 13 years, was represented by counsel instructed by the Appellant’s solicitors. There was also a representative of the instructing solicitors in attendance. Counsel was centrally involved in the events which unfolded. (b) The actions of counsel were evidently precipitated by an intervention on the part of the FtT Judge unfavourable in terms to the merits of the appeal. What counsel did was clearly motivated by this. (c) Counsel then applied to have the appeal withdrawn. No reasons were provided. The FtT Judge sanctioned this course. (d) Counsel did not have the authority of either the Appellant or any duly authorised agent of the Appellant for this course. 3. The salient aspects of the FtT Judge’s conduct of the hearing at first instance are outlined above. To this summary it is necessary to add one further feature of some significance. The outcome of the hearing was not recorded in any order, decision or other document bearing the Judge’s name or signed by the Judge. It was, rather, recorded in a HMCTS pro-forma (Form IA55), dated 24 November 2016 (six days post-hearing) and addressed to the Appellant’s solicitors. This document contains all the basic, formal details pertaining to the appeal and, under the rubric “Notice”, states: “ The appellant was represented at the hearing, his Counsel took the view to withdraw perfectly and legitimately, in these circumstances there is nothing for the tribunal to do. Solicitors should take it up with Counsel. ” This form makes provision for signature by the “Clerk to the First-tier Tribunal”. However, it bears no person’s signature. As the text reproduced above indicates, the document was completed reactively and retrospectively. 4. The context in which the aforementioned Form IA55 was completed becomes clear when one identifies what preceded and precipitated it, namely a letter dated 18 November from the Appellant’s solicitors to the FtT “for the attention of” the Judge concerned. This states, so far as material: “ We write further to the above matter and the full hearing listed today that was withdrawn by Counsel …. We hereby confirm that we were not consulted about this. Counsel withdrew the appeal without our authorisation …… The Appellant had his foster carer, his social worker, the foster carer’s senior social worker and another witness all in attendance. ……. We submit that for something as important as an asylum and human right’s appeal for an unaccompanied minor, aged 13 years old, we would not have withdrawn his appeal in those circumstances. ” The letter then raises the issue of the decision being set aside under Rule 32 ( infra) on the basis that this would be in the interests of justice or on the ground of procedural irregularity. The response which this stimulated, in Form IA55, does not address this discrete application and does not purport to determine it. This is unfortunate, not least because of the clear indications that the response was prepared either by or under the direction of the Judge concerned. 5. I interpose the following at this juncture. Initially Instructed counsel has not had instructions to represent the Appellant since the FtT hearing. Counsel has, however, clearly been most cooperative and, so far as I can determine, candid in his interaction with the Appellant’s solicitors. This is deserving of some credit, in a context of professional embarrassment and possible disciplinary action. If and insofar as there is any enquiry into the events summarised in [2] above in another forum, I emphasise two things. First, this summary is based on the evidence available to this tribunal. Second, it does not purport to bind any other court or tribunal and, as a matter of law, does not have this effect in any event.