T2, appeal by
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 05 January 2018 |
| Case Outcome | Dismissed |
| Court | Special Immigration Appeals Commission |
| Appellant | T2 |
| Subject Matter | Exclusion |
1
Appeal No: SN/129/2016
Hearing Dates: 24th & 25th October 2017
Date of Judgment: 5th January 2018
SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
Before:
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE ELISABETH LAING
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GILL
MR NEIL JACOBSEN OBE
T2
APPLICANT
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
RESPONDENT
For the Applicant: Mr H Southey QC and Mr N Armstrong
Instructed by: Lupins Solicitors
Special Advocate: Mr M Goudie QC
Instructed by: Special Advocates’ Support Office
For the Respondent: Mr R Palmer and Mr J Stansfeld
Instructed by: Government Legal Department
OPEN JUDGMENT
2
Introduction
1. This is our open judgment in this application pursuant to section 2C of the
Special Immigration Appeals Commission the 1997 Act to set aside a
direction made by the Respondent (‘the Secretary of State’) on 3 August 2016
to exclude T2 from the United Kingdom (‘the direction’). The consequences
of the direction were that the Appellant’s leave to remain (‘LTR’) in the
United Kingdom was cancelled, he was refused leave to enter (‘LTE’) the
United Kingdom on 4 August 2016, and, while the direction is in force, any
future application by T2 for entry clearance, or for LTE, would be refused.
The Secretary of State certified the direction under section 2C of the 1997 Act.
The effect of that certificate was that T2 was able to apply to the Special
Immigration Appeals Commission (‘the Commission’) for a review of the
direction and to ask the Commission to set the direction aside.
2. T2 was represented by Mr Southey QC and Mr Armstrong. Mr Goudie QC
was the Special Advocate, and the Secretary of State was represented by Mr
Palmer and Mr Stansfeld. We are grateful to all counsel for their written and
oral submissions.
3. The directions in this case, dated 7 December 2016, were made by Flaux J (as
he then was). They gave permission to T2 to give oral evidence by video link.
We heard him give evidence. He was cross examined by Mr Palmer. The
directions did not explain on what basis that permission was granted. There
was nothing in the order for directions which stipulated that we should take
the evidence into account, still less for what purpose. We heard the evidence,
but, for the reasons we give below, we have decided that it was not relevant to
the issues we have to decide, and we say no more about it.
4. T2 applied for a direction that the public be excluded from the open hearing
and that reporting restrictions be applied to it. He argued that his account in
his witness statement is that he has had ‘a significant level of contact with the
Security Services’. In her OPEN skeleton argument, confirmed by Mr Palmer
in his oral submissions, the Secretary of State neither confirmed nor denied
To continue reading
Request your trial