Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, sustains the second and third pleas in law for the pursuer, repels the third plea in law for the defender, and allows the appeal to the extent of reducing to the sum of �2500.00 the civil penalty to be paid by the pursuer to the defender.
[1] This is an appeal, by way of summary application, under Section 17 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 ("the 2006 Act") against the imposition, by the defender of a civil penalty the pursuer.
[2] The appellant was ably assisted by his cousin, Mr Muhammad Kashif. I am grateful to both parties for agreeing as much of the factual material as they did in advance of the hearing. The issue in dispute was well focussed and I am also grateful to Ms Anderson for her helpful written submissions which comprehensively set out the statutory scheme and the approach taken by the defender in applying it.
[3] I heard evidence from Leighsa Boyd and Ashleigh Pears, both Immigration Officers with the UK Borders Agency ("the Agency") . There was no cross examination of either witness. The appellant did not give or call any evidence.
[4] Having heard the evidence and submissions, I made the following findings in fact.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.