Anoliefo (Permission to Appeal) [Asylum and Immigration Tribunal]
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Blake,Blake J |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] UKUT 345 (IAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Date | 27 June 2013 |
[2013] UKUT 345 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
THE PRESIDENT, THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Blake
For the Appellant: B Criggie, of Hamilton Burns and Co. Solicitors
For the Respondent: A Mullin, Home Office Presenting Officer
Anoliefo (permission to appeal)
Where there is no reasonable prospect that any error of law alleged in the grounds of appeal could have made a difference to the outcome, permission to appeal should not normally be granted in the absence of some point of public importance that it is otherwise in the public interest to determine.
This is an appeal from a decision of a panel of the First-tier Tribunal, Judge Reid presiding, dated 11 March 2013. In that decision the panel dismissed the appellant's appeal from a deportation decision made against him on 18 December 2012.
The material facts are as follows. The appellant is a national of Nigeria born in November 1974. He arrived in the United Kingdom in October 2004 when he was nearly 30 years of age. He arrived with a student visa valid until January 2006 that was subsequently extended until October 2008. In July 2008 the appellant was arrested by Police and charged with serious sexual offences and has remained in custody ever since.
On 28 May 2009, following a trial, he was convicted of a number of counts of assault and breach of the peace and one count of rape for which he was given a custodial sentence of twelve years in June 2009. He subsequently appealed to the High Court of Judiciary and, on 3 December 2012, he was successful in part in that the assault and breach of the peace convictions were quashed and he was re-sentenced on the single rape count to nine years imprisonment.
I was informed at the hearing of the case today that the basis on which he challenged each of his convictions was that he had been improperly denied access to a solicitor before his police interview. Although decisions of the High Court of Judiciary are final in a criminal cause or matter, the appellant sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis of a devolution issue, namely the compatibility of the admission of his police interview on the rape charge with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The High Court refused that application on the 19 December 2012 and I was informed no application has subsequently been made to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal.
When this appeal came before a panel in February 2013 there was a preliminary application that the case be adjourned to enable an application to be lodged for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The panel refused that application and although this formed the first ground for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the First-tier judge correctly rejected it and it has not been renewed before me today. Whether a deportation hearing should be adjourned pending further proceedings in relation to a conviction by which the detrimental conduct is sought to be proved, depends upon all material circumstances of the case, and the facts that are in issue. There was no want of fairness by the panel in refusing this application where no application for permission had been made and otherwise the decision of the High Court was final with regard to this criminal conviction.
Having refused the application for an adjournment the panel then considered all the evidence. This was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2017-04-06, DA/00146/2013
...have come to a different conclusion …” To like effect is the statement of the Upper Tribunal in Anoliefo (Permission to Appeal) [2013] UKUT 00345 (IAC), at “Where there is no reasonable prospect that any error of law alleged in the grounds of appeal could have made a difference to the outco......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-05-29, IA/42099/2014
...these three issues that was put before the judge. He also brought to my attention the authority of Anoliefo (permission to appeal) [2013] UKUT 00345 (IAC) and highlighted that where there is no reasonable prospect that any error of law alleged in the grounds of appeal could have made a diff......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-05-06, OA/23670/2012
...an issue of law arises or a matter which would benefit from an oral hearing (see, for example Anoliefo (Permission to appeal) [2013] UKUT 345 (IAC)). The power to do so is clearly recognised in the Upper Tribunal Rules dealing with case management. Rule 5(2)(f) states “…the Upper Tribunal m......
-
Nixon (permission to appeal: grounds)
...evidently immaterial, error of law has been committed is recognised. The general rule enunciated in Anoliefo (permission to appeal) [2013] UKUT 00345 (IAC) should be noted. The President stated, at [16]: “Where there is no reasonable prospect that any error of law alleged in the grounds of ......