Hafiz Aman Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 201
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Col Maleci
29 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 28 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
The government tried to take away a man's citizenship. They missed deadlines to provide evidence. A court threw out their late evidence. The government then tried to withdraw its case to redo it, but another court said that was a trick and ended the case.
Key Facts
- •The respondent, Maleci, was a British citizen who had his citizenship revoked under s.40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 due to suspected fraud.
- •The Home Office relied on an Embassy letter suggesting Maleci's birth details were false.
- •The Home Office failed to comply with multiple First-tier Tribunal (FTT) directions to provide supporting evidence for the Embassy letter.
- •The FTT judge excluded the late evidence, leading to the appeal being granted to the respondent.
- •The appellant (Home Office) appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) on three grounds.
Legal Principles
The FTT has the power to issue directions regulating evidence submission, with sanctions for non-compliance, including exclusion of evidence if deemed 'just'.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, Rules 2, 4, 5, 6
The concept of 'just' in the context of sanctions for non-compliance considers fairness and the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, Rule 2; SSHD v SS (Congo) and Others [2015] EWCA Civ 387
The three-stage test for relief from sanctions (SSHD v SS (Congo)) applies when assessing non-compliance with directions: (1) seriousness of the breach; (2) reason for the breach; (3) evaluation of all circumstances.
SSHD v SS (Congo) and Others [2015] EWCA Civ 387; Mitchell v NGN [2013] EWCA Civ 1537; Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Procedural rigour is necessary in public law litigation to ensure fairness and efficient administration of justice.
R (Spahiu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2604; R (Dolan) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2020] EWCA Civ 1605; R (AB) Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary [2019] EWHC 3461 (Admin); R (Talpada) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 841
An appeal is treated as withdrawn under FTT Rule 17(2) unless there's a good reason not to, considering the impact on both parties.
ZEI and others (Decision withdrawn - FtT Rule 17 – considerations) Palestine [2017] UKUT 00292 (IAC)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's decision.
The FTT judge erred in law by believing he couldn't depart from earlier directions regarding evidence exclusion and also misapplied Rule 17 regarding withdrawal of the appeal.
The appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The UT found there was no 'good reason' to continue the appeal given the appellant's attempt to withdraw the underlying decision seemed designed to circumvent the earlier evidence ruling. The UT applied ZEI principles.
Similar Cases
Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 294 (IAC)
Shyti v Secretary of State For The Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 770
Shahanas Kanhirakandan v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 1298
Sufia Begum v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 46 (IAC)