[2025] UKUT 00277 (IAC)

Mr Marziano properly accepted that in the event ground 1 was found to be unarguable, ground 2 would be unable to demonstrate an arguable error of law on its own. We agree. We deal with ground 2 briefly, should we be wrong about ground 1.

Mr Marziano clarified the focus of his challenge in ground 2 in his oral submissions. He submitted that the FTT should have taken into account the information regarding PTSD, as contained in a report dated 27 October 2022, prepared by Dr Green, a Chartered Clinical Psychologist. The report was prepared in support of an appeal against sentence. Mr Marziano therefore acknowledged that this report attracted less probative weight because it was prepared for purposes unrelated to the FTT proceedings and did not directly engage with the issues in dispute relevant to s. 117C of the 2002 Act and Article 8. It is also of some vintage, applying to the appellant’s circumstances in 2022. At the hearing before the FTT on 11 December 2024, the appellant confirmed he was fit and well, not taking any medication or receiving counselling or therapy.

Despite ground 2 referring to a “wealth of information regarding the appellant’s background which should have been taken into account”, there was no attempt to specify which information was relevant to the question of “very significant obstacles”, let alone why it is said that the information was not taken into account. We invited Mr Marziano to take us to the aspects of the psychological report he relied upon in this regard. He conceded that the report contained no formal diagnosis of PTSD and the witness statements relied upon by the appellant and his mother before the FTT contained no information above and beyond the information contained in the report. He referred us to [8.9] of that report which confirms that the appellant was not currently suffering with PTSD symptoms, albeit there was trauma in his background. The FTT was clearly aware of the psychological report and factored it into the holistic assessment of the “very significant obstacles” assessment, having expressly referred to it at [28], [39] and [40]. The FTT unarguably addressed the relevant mental health issues. No further analysis of the expert report was arguably required.