[2024] UKUT 00142 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

[2024] UKUT 00142 (IAC)

Fecha: 21-Dic-2023

The Appellants’ case in summary

The Appellants’ case in summary

24.

The appellants’ central submission before us is that although there is no room for doubt that there was widespread cheating in TOEIC tests, it is quite wrong to treat the TOEIC scandal as ‘a fraud’. There were in fact numerous different and apparently unrelated frauds carried out in the context of a system in which security was both very lax and entirely dependent on the probity of seemingly unvetted independent contractors. The appellants rely upon evidence that they claim vividly demonstrates the confusion of the small number of ETS staff trying to figure out what was happening at the time.

25.

The appellants claim the evidence demonstrates that various frauds were perpetrated in at least three different ways:

(i)

direct use of proxies who would ‘swap in’ for those taking the tests who would simply stand aside, as in the Panorama film (the ‘swap in’ method);

(ii)

the use of ‘hidden rooms’ in which ‘TeamViewer’ or equivalent software was used to allow a bank of proxies to control the computers of others in an ‘open’ room (the ‘TeamViewer’ method);

(iii)

the use of ‘hidden rooms’ in which the test was downloaded onto two sets of computers, but the tests uploaded to ETS came from a bank operated by proxies, rather than those in the ‘open’ room (the ‘parallel test’ method).

26.

The appellants claim there appear to be other possible methods, including potentially the recording and reuse of voice files, direct file manipulation, and perhaps more yet to be discovered. There are a range of ‘unknowns’ and different colleges will have adopted different methods at different times that were perfected, or as the case may be, as they became more complacent.

27.

Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. In the use of some methods the individual wishing to rely upon a test taken by a proxy will be complicit in the fraud. The two methods that involve the use of a ‘hidden room’, the appellant’s claim, make the detection of fraud difficult, and the appellants accept, would have required some technical skill. The appellants claims the ‘parallel test’ method was much more difficult to detect than the ‘TeamViewer’ method, and had the advantage that it can be operated so that it would not be necessary to turn away honest test takers – they could simply sit the test for the ordinary fee, and if they passed, as they inevitably would, they would not notice anything amiss.