UI2024001946

             This is an appeal by the Appellant from the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Groom promulgated on 4 March 2024. By that decision, the Judge dismissed the Appellant's appeal from the Secretary of State's decision to refuse his human rights claim based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

             The primary ground of appeal is that the Judge failed to treat the Appellant as a vulnerable witness and thereby erred in law.

             I am grateful to Mr Chowdhury Rahman, who appeared for the Appellant, and Mr Tony Melvin, who appeared for the Secretary of State, for their assistance and able submissions. Mr Rahman developed the pleaded grounds of appeal in his oral submissions. He invited me to allow the appeal and set aside the Judge's decision. Mr Melvin resisted the appeal and submitted that there was no error of law in the Judge's decision. He invited me to dismiss the appeal and uphold the Judge's decision.

             There was evidence before the Judge as to the Appellant's health in the form of his witness statement and from Dr Nosa-Ehima, Dr Farooqui and the NHS. The Appellant has been diagnosed with Hepatitis B. He is under specialist care and require lifelong monitoring. He has mental health issues and received support from a consultant psychiatrist. He is said to be under a great deal of stress effecting his mental and physical health and is on antidepressants. It is tolerably clear that he is a vulnerable individual.

             The Judge, with respect, simply failed to address the issue as to the Appellant's vulnerability. There is nothing in the Judge's decision to show that they followed Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance ("the Presidential Guidance Note"). The Court of Appeal in AM (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1123 [2018] 2 All ER 350 , at [30], noted that such a failure "will most likely be a material error of law".