UI2024000206

      Granting permission to appeal, Judge Brannan summaries the grounds of appeal as follow: 'a. Refusing an application to adjourn b. Suggesting to the appellant's counsel that the matter proceed on submissions only because the respondent had failed to discharge the burden of proof on her regarding the appellant being a party to a marriage of convenience thereby denying the respondent the opportunity to cross-examine the sponsor.'

      Ms Coen made oral submissions at the initial hearing and provided a helpful Rule 24 response. Mr Diwnycz, Senior Presenting Officer for the Secretary of State, made no submissions beyond relying on the grounds of appeal.

      Secondly, I agree with Ms Coen that there is nothing in the judge's decision to suggest that the judge 'advised' the respondent's representative to cross examine or not do so. It was wholly a matter for the respondent to decide how to present her own case, including whether that would or would not involve cross examination of witnesses.

      Thirdly, it was for the judge, having fairly refused an adjournment, to decide the appeal on the best evidence available; the judge was not required to take account of evidence which, for whatever reason, was not before him. Ultimately, it was entirely open to the judge to prefer the witness evidence of the sponsor as the nature and validity of the marriage. As the Rule 24 statement of Ms Coen states, neither ground identifies a met error of law on the part of the judge. Accordingly, the Secretary of State's appeal is dismissed.