[2025] UKUT 00305 (IAC)

The Upper Tribunal has an inherent jurisdiction to govern its own procedure and part of that jurisdiction mandates that we ensure that the lawyers interacting with the Upper Tribunal conduct themselves according to proper professional standards. The Upper Tribunal cannot afford to have its limited resources absorbed by representatives who place false information before the Tribunal. Further, time spent on applications containing false legal information also risks a loss of public confidence in the processes of the Upper Tribunal. We are also aware that the immigration client group can be particularly vulnerable. We emphasise that the primary duty of solicitors and barristers is to the Court and Upper Tribunal, and to the cause of truth and justice.

We guide ourselves with reference to the judgment in R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin), and the subsequent judgments of R (Sathivel) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 913 (Admin) and R (DVP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 606 (Admin); and in this instance more specifically to the judgement in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey, Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).

The purpose of the present hearing is to decide whether it is appropriate to refer Mr Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman, of Counsel, to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for investigation. What is said in this Hamid decision is not binding on the BSB but may assist them to explore this matter further and consider what, if any action, is appropriate.