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.
This is an appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge R G Walters, promulgated on 25 th September 2014, following a hearing at Taylor House on 20 th August 2014. In the determination, the judge dismissed the appeal of Mrs Beverley Moyo. The Appellant subsequently applied for, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and thus the matter comes before me.
The Appellant�s claim is that she entered the UK in 2000 as a visitor and overstayed, was subsequently served with illegal entrant papers in 2003, and was eventually the subject of a court recommended deportation order in 2007. However, by the time of the hearing before Judge R G Walters, she was able to point to the fact that her EEA partner, Mr Abu Sule, was a qualified person exercising treaty rights, and that no grounds were shown for her exclusion on the basis of public policy.
The judge had before him, on the day of the hearing, a supplementary bundle from the Appellant�s side, which the judge ruled as being inadmissible, because this bundle (referred to as �A.2�), had not been filed in accordance with directions (see paragraph 21). The judge ruled that this was important because the Respondent should have been given the opportunity to �check its veracity.� The judge explained that,
�If A.2 had been served, for example, five days prior to the hearing or even at some time after he got his job (the evidence shows this was on 2 nd May 2014), the Respondent would have had an opportunity to check its veracity. No explanation was advanced why the evidence had not been served until the date of hearing� (see paragraph 22).
With the evidence excluded by the judge, it was held that there was no evidence to show that the Appellant�s partner, Mr Abu Sule, was a qualified person, exercising treaty rights. The judge, having made this decision, did not then go on to decide whether the Appellant�s exclusion would be proper in the grounds of public policy under Regulation 21(6), as explained in paragraph 29 of the determination.
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.