E.P. FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

For judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), dated 27 April 2012

[3] The matter came before me at a continued procedural hearing at which I was urged on behalf of the respondent to sustain his first plea in law to the effect that, as a matter of relevancy, the issues raised in the petition fell outwith the supervisory jurisdiction of this court and that the petition should therefore be dismissed. The parties were agreed that the issues to be raised before me should be determined at this preliminary stage. The matter had been continued on the basis that a full day would be required for the hearing. In the event, a further half day was required in addition.

[4] In Eba v Advocate General 2012 SC (UKSC) 1 , the Supreme Court held that, consistent with the decision in R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2012] 1 AC 663 , the second‑tier appeals criteria provide the benchmark to be applied in the exercise of this court's supervisory jurisdiction in relation to unappealable decisions of the UT. The exceptional nature of the criteria is encapsulated in the tests described in the phrases "some important point of principle and practice" and "some other compelling reason". As it was put by Lord Hope DPSC in Eba :

"[48] Underlying the first of these concepts is the idea that the issue would require to be one of general importance, not one confined to the petitioner's own facts and circumstances. The second would include circumstances where it was clear that the decision was perverse or plainly wrong or where, due to some procedural regulatory, the petitioner had not had a fair hearing at all."

"57. ...the new and in many ways enhanced tribunal structure deserves a more restrained approach to judicial review than has previously been the case..."