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 appellants appeal against a decision by FtT Judge Doyle, promulgated on 5 July 2016, dismissing their appeals against refusal of entry clearance.
Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal to the UT are concerned with relating evidence to dates, the admissibility of the DVR, and Devaseelan principles. These grounds are misconceived. The Judge's references to relevant dates (application or decision) are muddled, but not in any way which makes a difference to the outcome. There is nothing in Devaseelan which demonstrates error. The DVR was admissible in evidence, and the Judge had to decide whether it constituted evidence which undermined the decision of Judge Bell.
The respondent's rule 24 response concedes and Mr Diwyncz confirmed that ground 3 shows error of law.
The Judge found at ¶10 (e) and (f) that the DVR was difficult to follow, and not clear evidence of forgery or dishonesty, but that it did show that the documents produced by the appellants could not be relied upon. The error of law is absence or inadequacy of reasons for that conclusion.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside , and the following decision is substituted: the appeals, as originally brought to the FtT, are allowed .
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.