Sangar Azia v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A party alleging improper conduct by a judge must substantiate the allegation with evidence. That evidence should be obtained while memories are fresh, served on the opposing party and filed with the Tribunal in good time.

The Upper Tribunal may refuse late oral evidence where its proposed admission would be unfair to the other party or contrary to the interests of justice. A judgment may state its conclusion before setting out its reasons. There is no general rule requiring reasons for a procedural or interlocutory ruling to be given when that ruling is made.

The appellant, an Iraqi national, appealed the refusal of further leave after an earlier asylum claim had been refused and discretionary leave granted. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal on all grounds, including asylum, human-rights and humanitarian-protection grounds.

On appeal, he alleged that the Immigration Judge had acted improperly by curtailing evidence, intervening inappropriately and preventing a fair hearing. He also challenged the placement of the credibility conclusion within the written determination and the timing of reasons for a refused adjournment.

The central issue was whether the allegations of judicial misconduct had been properly substantiated and whether late proposed oral evidence should be admitted.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had not established that the Immigration Judge acted improperly or that the First-tier Tribunal’s determination contained a material error of law.
2. Allegations concerning a judge’s conduct are serious and, if established, will commonly justify setting aside a determination. But allegations alone are insufficient. They must be proved by evidence obtained promptly, served on the respondent and filed with the Tribunal sufficiently early for fair consideration. This may permit comments from the judge and enable the respondent to decide whether evidence from the presenting officer is required.
3. The Tribunal refused permission to adduce the proposed oral evidence. The appellant’s representatives had apparently retained potentially relevant notes for many months, had not disclosed the proposed evidence in advance, and intended to call witnesses without prepared or disclosed witness statements. Admission in those circumstances would have been unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.
4. The remaining procedural complaints had no merit. It is unobjectionable for a written decision to state its conclusion before its reasons. Nor is there a general requirement that reasons for a procedural or interlocutory ruling be given orally at the moment the ruling is made.
5. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was then receiving counselling and social-work support. Following the respondent’s undertaking, any fresh claim supported by new relevant evidence and made within three months of 25 January 2012 would be considered and, if refused, treated as giving rise to a fresh appealable decision.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appeal, holding that the allegations of improper judicial conduct had not been proved and refusing permission to adduce late oral evidence.
• First-tier Tribunal: the Immigration Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal on all grounds after refusing an adjournment and declining to admit a report prepared for a different appellant.