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.
       Granting permission Upper Tribunal Judge Pickup wrote:
The grounds are poorly drafted and somewhat difficult to follow. However, in summary, they assert that the Judge erred in (i) applying an elevated threshold or incorrect test; and (ii) failed to give reasons or any adequate reasons for findings on a material matter, namely by failing to take proper account of the public interest considerations in schedule 1 of the 2016 Regulations.
The appellant had acquired permanent residence and, therefore, under Regulation 27(3), "A relevant decision may not be taken in respect of a person with a right of permanent residence under regulation 15 except on serious grounds of public policy and public security."
It is arguable that the judge misdirected themselves and conflated the relevant tests by stating at [51] of the decision: "... I must also be satisfied that the threat is genuine and present. If the 29 2 Appellant had not acquired permanent residence, I would have found the assessment very difficult. However, the Respondent has to demonstrate that there are 'serious grounds' for believing that the threat is genuine and present and this is a higher threshold."
Reading the decision as a whole, it is also arguable that the public interest considerations have been ignored or misapplied.
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.