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.
For the Respondent: Ms Alexandra Everett, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
"2. The grounds assert that the Judge erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for why the voice recording did not rebut the Appellant's claim that he did not cheat in his ETS speaking test. In doing so the Judge failed to have proper regard of DK & RK (ETS: SSHD evidence, proof) India [2022] UKUT 112 ."
"The appellant's evidence is nothing more than pleas of innocence and he has not provided a shred of direct evidence that demonstrates that he sat the test that could explain away the fact that the test recording is not his, which renders it more probable than not that he did not sit the test".
Ms Everett acknowledged that assertive evidence can be sufficient and that weight is a matter for the judge. She did not address us in any detail in respect of the impugned decision.
The making of the previous decision involved the making of no error on a point of law
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.