IA043212013

The appellant sought and was granted permission to appeal against this decision on the basis that the judge had arguably failed to take into account in particular the relevant authority of AA (Nigeria) [2010] EWCA Civ 773 which made it clear that a representation was �false� for the purposes of paragraph 322(1A) only if it had been made dishonestly. Permission was granted on all grounds.

Subsequently on 1 July 2013 the Secretary of State put in a Rule 24 response opposing the appeal and arguing that the judge had directed himself appropriately.

At the hearing Ms Horsley disagreed with the response and conceded that there was an error of law on the honesty point. This was a matter that should have been considered by the judge. Subsequently, although it is probably best to mention it at this point in the determination, Ms Horsley also sought and was granted permission to withdraw the section 47 decision in light of what had been said by the Court of Appeal in Ahmadi [2013] EWCA Civ 512 .

The first issue was the question of misrepresentation and whether it was innocent or dishonest. The Presenting Officer at the hearing had not disputed the appellant�s account when he had said what he had been told by the ticket officer. It was an innocent misrepresentation. It was an offence which would not usually go before a court and he had offered to pay the balance but was told to pay when he got the penalty letter. He had not disputed the matter when he got the letter from the court and paid. His behaviour had been credible.

With regard to human rights issues, a section 120 One-Stop Warning had been served on the appellant and he had made a human rights claim and that should have been considered.