Case No. UKUT-00414-(IAC)

The 2018 decision 52. We can deal briefly with the 2018 decision. The challenge to it is academic. The decision conferred a period of restricted leave to remain which has since expired. Before us, Ms Weston was unable to identify any operative reasons why it was necessary, within the confines of the discretionary nature of judicial review, for us to consider the 2018 decision. She submitted that the 2019 decision repeats and thereby compounds the errors which contaminated the 2018 decision, but realistically accepted that, to the extent she sought to establish that the 2019 decision was unlawful or disproportionate, it would be possible to make the appropriate submissions by reference to that decision alone, without the need for substantive consideration of the 2018 decision in its own capacity. 53. We see no reason to entertain consideration of the 2018 decision in any further depth. The grounds in relation to which permission has been granted are now otiose, as the decision is no longer in force. 54. We refuse the application in relation to grounds 1 and 4. For the same reason, we refuse permission on grounds 2 and 3, in respect of which permission has not already been granted. The 2019 decision 55. The focus of Ms Weston’s challenge to the 2019 decision was not the proportionality of the conditions it imposed on the applicant’s restricted leave, such as the frequency of his reporting requirements, or even the length of the grant of restricted leave. Rather, the challenge was to the decision to not to grant indefinite leave to remain and to continue to subject the applicant to the terms of the RL policy. 56. The 2019 decision was in response to an application to the respondent submitted online on 26 February 2019, initial accompanying written representations dated 14 March 2019, and further representations and medical evidence dated 26 April 2019, including Dr Bell’s report. Collectively, the representations featured three elements. 57.