Case No. UKUT-00293-(IAC)

[2016] EWCA Civ 492 11. I paraphrase the FtT judge’s response in the following way: (a) There was nothing inappropriate about identifying the issues at the outset of the hearing. (b) Counsel’s invocation of the audi alteram partem principle “… was not relevant…. I was not preventing the representative from calling his evidence at all. Nor was I questioning his running of this appeal.” (c) The judge, at the outset of the hearing, was asking the Appellant’s representative to “ take on board and address” the issues of the Appellant’s immigration history and the timing of his claim for asylum. The judge then comments that he made detailed notes of the hearing and, in defence of his impartiality and objectivity, refers to certain passages in his decision. 12. In [14] of his decision the judge records that at the outset of the hearing he identified the main issues as the Appellant’s immigration history; his asylum claim and the inconsistencies asserted in the refusal decision; the expert evidence; and the country guidance decision of GJ [2013] UKUT 00319. Continuing, the decision states at [15]: “15. Mr Lingajothy made an application to adduce the evidence of the third and fourth Appellants, namely, the son and daughter of the principal Appellant. Ms Knight objected. She indicated that this was not in compliance with directions and no application had been made prior to today. I enquired of Mr Lingajothy what the purpose of calling the children would be today. He indicated that it was to talk about the Article 8 rights. I ruled that I would reject the application for two reasons. First, no application was made until today and the Home Office had not been put on notice. Second, if the purpose of calling the two children was to shore up the Article 8 account, this is something that the principal Appellant himself could do.” 13. In any appeal involving issues of apparent bias or procedural unfairness it is incumbent upon the appellate court or tribunal to identify the material factual matrix. Concessions and inter-partes agreement will frequently facilitate this exercise. However these do not form part of the present appeal matrix. Thus it is necessary to identify all relevant evidence as a whole and form a view accordingly, keeping in mind that the central question is the quintessentially factual one: what actually happened at the first instance hearing? 14. In this context I refer to the decision of this Tribunal in