Senior President of Tribunals' Annual Report 2016 published, includes review of year in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber
The Senior President of Tribunals' Annual Report 2016 has been published today.
The report is the first by the new Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Ernest Ryder. You can read it in full here.
Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey contributes a review of the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, to the report, while Judge Michael Clements does the same for the First-tier Tribunal.
We've excerpted both pieces below:
_________________________________
Senior President
of Tribunals'
Annual Report
February 2016
[…]
Annex A – The Upper Tribunal
[…]
Immigration & Asylum Chamber
President: Mr Justice (Bernard) McCloskey
The jurisdictional landscape
The jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber ("UTIAC") remains unchanged. We continue to deal with all error of law appeals from the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") in asylum and immigration cases, together with almost 95% of all immigration and asylum judicial reviews. In this Chamber we also deal with all so-called "age assessment" judicial reviews. Further, some of our Judges are members of the panel in cases heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ("SIAC").
The number of statutory appeals submitted to UTIAC was expected to reduce in accordance with the reduction in work profiles for the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT"). This reduction, however, did not materialise and receipts have remained higher than originally profiled.
The Chamber continues to receive applications for permission to appeal to UTIAC, where the FtT has not granted leave to appeal, in substantial numbers. A large percentage of these applications are refused.
Permission to appeal applications from this Chamber to the Court of Appeal represents another category of judicial work. Grants of permission to appeal are made in a small percentage of cases only, by either this Chamber or, following refusal, the Court of Appeal.
As regards judicial review cases in immigration and asylum matters, this Chamber's jurisdiction dates from 01 November 2013 when the transfer from the Administrative Court ("AC") took effect. This was described in greater detail in last year's report. Applications continue to be submitted in substantial numbers, presenting a constant challenge.
I am pleased to report that since January 2015, the output of the Chamber in judicial review cases outstripped input for the first time since the historic transfer in November 2013. This is attributable in substantial measure to the professionalism and industry of our Judges, bearing in mind that while the assumption of the new judicial review jurisdiction roughly doubled the overall workload of this Chamber, there has been no increase in salaried judicial resource, albeit a slight increase in fee paid judicial resource was achieved during a limited period. The advance in judicial review output required the internal diversion of judicial resources, with a detrimental impact on the statutory appeal stream, particularly permission to appeal applications. I must also compliment administration, who have been responsive to the constant need for more efficient and better streamlined processes and arrangements. This remains a work in progress, with judiciary and administration operating in partnership. Our senior administrator, Michael Nuna and his team qualify for due thanks and recognition in this respect.
Judicial Personnel
We had two notable retirements during the past year. One of our longest serving, most respected and most popular Judges, Jim Latter, retired during the summer. There was no question of easing off before he did so. Quite the contrary: during the last 16 months of his judicial career, Jim volunteered for, and occupied, the demanding post of Principal Resident Judge of UTIAC Headquarters at Field House, London. Needless to say, Jim discharged the duties of this post with his customary professionalism, courtesy and commitment. We wish him well in his retirement and I am delighted to add that he will continue to offer occasional judicial services to the Chamber on a part-time basis.
The second notable retirement was that of Judge Hugo Storey: equally long serving, respected and popular. Hugo is one of the leading lights in the International Association of Refugee Law Judges, in which forum his industry and high quality contributions are universally acknowledged. He is, by some measure, the most sought after UTIAC Judge in the context of external events, both national and international. Hugo has made a seamless transition to the assumption of part-time duties in this Chamber, while continuing to make a notable contribution to our case reporting activities, continuous learning and international relations. I trust, and envisage, that he will remain a valuable member of our organisation for many years.
In the wake of Jim Latter's departure, the PRJ team at Field House underwent a shake up. It now consists of Judge Bernard Dawson (PRJ) and his two deputies, Judge Judith Gleeson and Judge Mark O'Connor. The contribution of this trio to the Chamber is simply enormous. I watch with a mixture of admiration and awe as their combined skills and seemingly inexhaustible energy consistently strengthen and enhance our organisation. The contributions of all judicial members of the Chamber, assiduously overseen by our Vice-President, in both their basic duties and beyond, are equally invaluable in this continuing era of austerity and constantly challenging workloads. Simultaneously, I commend those in the President's Office, in Administration and in the LRU, together with the UTIAC lawyers, all of whom continue to strive and serve unstintingly.
The headline of the past year was undoubtedly the recruitment of nine salaried (full time) Judges and 20 fee paid (part time) Judges. These appointments took effect during the period April to September 2015. They coincided with necessary exercises in training, induction and mentoring in which many of the Chamber's regulars willingly participated. Our new colleagues are a most welcome addition to this Chamber. They are already beginning to demonstrate what they can contribute both individually and collectively. Without exception, each of our new recruits has joined one of the several flourishing chamber committees and I look forward to the fruits of this. Furthermore, it has been my pleasure to undertake a series of sittings with our new colleagues, a process which is now almost complete.
In a chamber of these dimensions, it is necessary to look forward almost constantly. During the forthcoming year it is anticipated that three or four of our longest serving Judges will follow Jim Latter into retirement. They will do so with our very best wishes and, as in Jim's case, I trust that it will be possible to avail of their unrivalled experience and expertise on a part time basis. Their departure will give rise to a further recruitment exercise and the necessary planning has already begun. Furthermore, the attractions of part-time working continue to be evident. Several Judges of the Chamber have reduced, or will presently reduce, their hours.
Some six months ago we began the process of a part time assignment of six Judges from the Administrative Appeals Chamber. This has not taken place in a vacuum. It has, rather, entailed a not insubstantial investment in training, induction, mentoring and monitoring. It is too soon to evaluate the efficacy and success of this unprecedented exercise. The Chamber continues to receive the welcome services of a High Court Judge and a Judge of the Court of Session (Scotland), normally on weekly or two weekly stints, during approximately nine months of the year. While we would wish to expand this discrete resource, it is a matter of regret that this is simply not possible in the prevailing age of austerity.
I continue to subscribe to the governing principle that the workloads of the Judges of this Chamber should be constantly governed by the standards of quality, expedition and fair and reasonable burden. I consider the first of these standards to be sacrosanct. The issue of workload is, inevitably, a constant in a chamber which transacts such large volumes of work. It is inextricably linked to the topic of judicial resources.
I am conscious that, unlike certain other chambers, we in this Chamber have no Registrars or Legal Information Officers. We have been discussing for some time the broad subject of maximising support for Judges to enable concentration on the core judicial tasks of adjudication and decision making. The recent inauguration of a new joint Judges and Lawyers Committee is designed to promote the examination of this subject in a more coherent, structured fashion. This committee will assess, in particular, the feasibility of delegating certain judicial functions to lawyers in both statutory appeals and judicial review cases. This exercise will result in the formulation of a set of concrete proposals and an ensuing report from this Chamber to the SPT.
UTIAC Committees
The Chamber has an impressive network of committees. Most of these are manned by Judges. Some of them have a mixed membership of Judges and administrators. The work of these committees is essential to the health and well being of the organisation. Judges continue to give generously of their time and I am only too aware that, in this respect, they exceed the reasonable limits of judicial duty. I applaud them accordingly.
During recent months I undertook a review of the Chamber's committees. This resulted in a number of changes in structure and personnel. One of the main drivers was the advent of so many new colleagues, noted above. I am optimistic that these changes will benefit the organisation as a whole. In addition to the newly established committee mentioned above, we continue to have dedicated committees in the key areas of judicial training, welfare, performance issues, reporting, Country Guidance and executive decision making. Some further changes in the modus operandi of some of these committees is foreseeable given the imperatives of expedition, efficiency and collegiality to which all subscribe.
In this context, I also look forward to building a constructive and fruitful relationship with legal representatives via the forum of the recently inaugurated UTIAC Legal Representatives Liaison Committee.
Continuous Learning
This Chamber continues to operate an enviable system of continuous learning. The frequency is weekly and, at certain times, daily. We also have, and continue to have, dedicated training events.
The topic of judicial learning and training is inextricably linked with that of international organisations which are, predominantly (though not exclusively), the International Association of Refugee Law Judges ("IARLJ") and the Association of European Administrative Judges ("AEAJ") in which we have an increasing profile. I trust that our Chamber will be able to aspire to corporate membership of the latter organisation in the very near future. Our profile in the IARLJ is at an all time high, thanks to Judges Hugo Storey, Judith Gleeson, Bernard Dawson and Jeremy Rintoul.
The simple reality is that the daily diet of this Chamber – immigration and asylum cases – has major EU law and international law ingredients. The central advantages of active participation in the organisations mentioned above are dissemination of information and expertise, innovation, learning and education. The involvement of this Chamber in activities of this kind is properly to be viewed through the prism of our constant striving for excellence in adjudication and judicial decision making. We are not a statistically driven conveyer belt. Rather we, the Judges of this Chamber, are serious professionals, constantly alert to the judicial oath of office and the privilege of serving the community in the best possible ways. This Chamber seeks to achieve excellence in all that it does.
Furthermore, the profile of this Chamber on the international plane brings imperceptible benefits to the public which must not be overlooked and, simultaneously, enhances judicial morale. The latter is an indispensable necessity in the promotion of excellence and the attainment of targets in an increasingly figures driven world.
I am delighted to report that this Chamber will be hosting a joint UTIAC/IARLJ/AEAJ seminar in September 2016. This will involve senior Judges from all over Europe and will provide an unprecedented and invaluable learning opportunity. Amongst other things it will enable this Chamber to showcase the range, quality and innovation of its jurisprudence.
The Chamber's Jurisprudence
During the past year the Judges of this Chamber have perpetuated a long established tradition of producing high quality decisions, reflected in our reported cases. The intensive vetting undertaken by our Reporting Committee serves to ensure that only judgments of the highest quality are reported. There have been judgments of this standard in the distinct spheres of immigration law, asylum law, practice/procedure and professional standards. Some of the more salient examples of these are listed below. Our reporting mechanism of "key words" ensures that, at a glance, the reader can appreciate the territory covered by each of the decisions.
Immigration Law
Mehmood (Legitimate Expectation) [2014] UKUT 469 (IAC) – which concerned the application of the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations in the context of a statutory appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal to grant the Appellant indefinite leave to remain.
Sultana and Others (Rules: Waiver/ Further Enquiry; Discretion) [2014] UKUT 540 (IAC).
R (Mushtaq) – v – Entry Clearance Officer of Islamabad, Pakistan (ECO-Procedural Fairness) IJR [2015] UKUT 224 (IAC).
R (Waqar) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (Statutory Appeals/Paragraph 353) IJR [2015] UKUT 169 (IAC).
JA (Meaning of "Access Rights") India [2015] UKUT 225 (IAC).
Adjei (Visit Visas – Article 8) [2015] UKUT 261 (IAC).
R (Patel) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (Section 3C(4): Simultaneous Application – Withdrawal) IJR [2015] UKUT 273 (IAC).
MAB (Paragraph 399: "Unduly Harsh") USA [2015] UKUT 435 (IAC).
R (JT) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (Section 94B NIAA 2002 Certification) IJR [2015] UKUT 537 (IAC).
R (Chen) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appendix FM – Chikwamba – temporary separation – proportionality) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 189 (IAC)
In addition, the Chamber has, in a series of decisions, undertaken the challenging task of construing and applying the new provisions of Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. See:
Dube (Sections 117A – 117D) [2015] UKUT 90 (IAC).
Chege (Section 117D – Article 8 – Approach: Kenya) [2015] UKUT 165 (IAC).
AM (Section 117B) Malawi [2015] UKUT 260 (IAC).
Badewa (Sections 117A – D and EEA Regulations) [2015] UKUT 329 (IAC).
SDSD
• Forman (Sections 117A – C Considerations) [2015] UKUT 412 (IAC).
• Bossade (Sections 117A – D: Inter-relationship with Rules) [2015] UKUT 415 (IAC).
• Deelah and Others (Section 117B – Ambit) [2015] UKUT 515 (IAC).
• KMO (Section 117 – Unduly Harsh) Nigeria [2015] UKUT 543 (IAC).
Asylum Law
• MOJ and Others (Returns to Mogadishu) (CG) [2014] UKUT 442 (IAC) – a country guidance decision relating to the safety of removing Somali nationals from the United Kingdom to their country of origin which was subsequently approved by the ECtHR in RH – v – Sweden [App No 4601/14].
• AK and SK (Christians: Risk) Pakistan (CG) [2014] UKUT 569 (IAC).
• LH and IP (Gay Men: Risk) (CG) [2015] UKUT 73 (IAC).
• HA (Article 24 QD) Palestinian Territories [2015] UKUT 465 (IAC).
• BM and Others (returnees – criminal and non-criminal) DRC CG [2015] UKUT 293 (IAC).
• LH and IP (gay men: risk) Sri Lanka CG [2015] UKUT 73 (IAC).
In addition, the Chamber has, in three judicial review decisions, sought to give guidance for the first time on the issue of returns under the Dublin Regulation to Hungary, Italy and Malta respectively. See:
• R (Simaei and Arap) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin Returns – Hungary) IJR [2015] UKUT 83 (IAC).
• R (Weldegaber) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin Returns – Italy) IJR [2015] UKUT 70 (IAC).
• R (Hagos) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin returns – Malta) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 271 (IAC).
Practice and Procedure
• BW (Witness Statements by Advocates) Afghanistan [2014] UKUT 568 (IAC).
• MR (Permission to Appeal: Tribunal's Approach) Brazil [2015] UKUT 29 (IAC).
• R (Naziri and Others) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR – Scope – Evidence) IJR [2015] UKUT 437 (IAC).
• R (Bilal Ahmed) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA / section 10 appeal rights; effect) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 436 (IAC).
• R (Gazi) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (ETS – judicial review) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 327 (IAC).
• R (on the application of Patel) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (s.3C(4): simultaneous application – withdrawal) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 273 (IAC).
• AA (Upper Tribunal – review power) Uzbekistan [2015] UKUT 330 (IAC).
• R (SN) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (striking out – principles) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 227 (IAC)
• Cancino (costs – First-tier Tribunal – new powers) [2015] UKFTT 59 (IAC)
• R (Sultana) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (mandatory order – basic principles) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 226 (IAC)
• R (Soreefan and Others) – v – Secretary of State for the Home Department (judicial review – costs – Court of Appeal) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 594 (IAC)
The Chamber's jurisprudence belonging to the discrete category of the EEA Regulations has continued to develop. See in particular:
• Macnikowski (Applicable Policies) [2014] UKUT 567 (IAC).
• Badewa (Sections 117A – D and EEA Regulations) [2015] UKUT 329 (IAC).
• Yusuf (EEA – Ceasing to be a Job Seeker: Effect) [2015] UKUT 433 (IAC).
• Amirteymour and Others (EEA Appeals: Human Rights) [2015] UKUT 466 (IAC) [note: under appeal]
• MC (Essa Principals Recast) [2015] UKUT 520 (IAC).
The Chamber's jurisprudence relating to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 has also continued to develop. See in particular:
• JO and Others (Section 55 Duty) Nigeria [2014] UKUT 517(IAC).
• MK (Section 55 – Tribunal Options) Sierra Leone [2015] UKUT 223 (IAC).
This Chamber's Interaction with the Legal Profession
It has been a mixed year in this respect. The President has invested time and effort in addressing a series of audiences on issues of particular interest to the profession. These have included matters of practice, procedure and professional standards. In this respect, reference is made to some of the decisions listed above.
The President is optimistic that the inauguration of a new judges/practitioners forum will yield mutual benefits. The forum which this Chamber intends to develop will be multilateral, transparent, professional and constructive. It is the President's wish that the groups and organisations which have been invited to participate in this forum will respond positively and participate actively.
The Forthcoming Year
I consider that a dedicated judicial intranet home page for this large Chamber is an absolute necessity. The home page would contain, at the touch of a button, all of the resources necessary to assist Judges in their daily work loads: access to primary legislation, subordinate legislation, EU legislation, international law instruments, reported cases, judicial papers, academic commentaries, and the most recent developments et alia. The specialised nature of the work of this Chamber and its associated specific needs demand the provision of this facility – which, incidentally, equivalent judicial organisations in many developed countries now take for granted. Furthermore, this will promote the developing policy of increasing digitalisation in courts and tribunals. I am delighted to say that we have the support of the SPT in this matter and, assisted by the several IT expert Judges of this Chamber, I shall be driving this forward.
There will be further appointments of new full time Judges to replace retiring judges, a weekly diet of continuous learning, much internal committee activity and issues of acute interest arising out of the HMCTS Reform Programme. We in this Chamber look forward to meeting the challenges, both foreseeable and less visible at this stage. Who knows, the Presidential wish list of a dedicated judicial intranet home page and an efficacious model of delegation of judicial functions may be realised!
Conclusion
Last, but far from least, we convey our very best wishes to the outgoing SPT, Sir Jeremy Sullivan and his family. It has been a pleasure working with him. I had occasion to describe Sir Jeremy as "Lord Justice Light Touch": maybe this says it all! Sir Jeremy has provided simply magnificent service to the public throughout his judicial career. What more is to be said?
We in this Chamber repeat our welcome to Sir Ernest Ryder, the new Senior President. Unsurprisingly, we have had a highly constructive and positive initial engagement with the new supremo and we look forward to a fruitful relationship.
[…]
Annex B – First-tier Tribunal
[…]
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
President: Judge Michael Clements
I begin by echoing the words of Sir Jeremy Sullivan in the foreword of last year's Annual Report of the Senior President of Tribunals, that "Volatile workloads, creating fluctuating pressures across the various jurisdictions are a particular characteristic of the work of Tribunals". Nowhere within HMCTS is this more the case than in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. An indication of this can be found in the figures for outstanding caseload, which in June 2015 stood at 52,991 as opposed to 43,643 one year previously and 45,043 one year before that.
Although we were correctly profiled for the work that we expected to receive from the Home Office, nevertheless unacceptable delays in listing arose in the third quarter of 2015 with obvious impacts on our court users. I have worked closely with administration over this aspect and am pleased to say that we have been able to offer further court hearings to reduce the problem.
Workload fluctuations in FtTIAC have brought with them unfortunate "boom and bust" cycles which are unpredictable in length and frequency. This leads to frustrations for both judges and administration with an understandable impact on morale especially amongst the fee-paid judges where lack of sittings leads to de-skilling large numbers of expensively trained judges.
It cannot be denied that these fluctuating cycles are a serious problem which must be acknowledged. It is something about which it can be fairly said in an annual report that the IAC "could do better". To that end, I am working with administrative colleagues and the SPT to do all we can to produce a more even workflow the lack of which affects the efficiency of the Tribunal. I hope to be able to make some concrete announcements about this in the near future.
In the longer term, one very important element in ironing out fluctuations will be an increased facility for cross-ticketing and assignment to enable both fee- paid and salaried judicial officers to be deployed flexibly and at relatively short notice to those locations of the Judicial Family where they are most needed.
To this end I hope and expect that IAC judges will make themselves available, as workloads require, to be trained and to sit in other jurisdictions thereby providing a flexible judicial resource. Those members of FtTIAC who already hold appointments as Recorders or Deputy District Judges are able to lead the way in this respect. For example, a salaried judge at the Hatton Cross hearing centre is currently obtaining family law "ticketing" in order to sit in the West London Family Court, which sits in the same building as FtTIAC. As mentioned last year we have already started to train colleagues from other Chambers to work in the IAC.
Notwithstanding the above problems, I record my thanks to Jason Latham of HMCTS who has assisted greatly during the past year in obtaining financial resources for FtTIAC which would not otherwise have been available and without which the situation would have been significantly worse. In this respect and in many others I again echo what Sir Jeremy Sullivan wrote a year ago that meeting the continuing challenges of FtTIAC has required close partnership working between judges and administrators. I am grateful to both judiciary and administration for the increasing engagement, and the constructive and amicable approach each has developed with the other.
The number of salaried judges in post in the Tribunal has reduced dramatically by retirements and resignations from 152 in 2005 to 94 as of October 2015. This represents the loss of an immense amount of judicial expertise and experience. As I reported last year and mentioned earlier, 197 fee-paid judges of the Social Entitlement Chamber and the Employment Tribunal have been inducted into the IAC and have been trained to conduct immigration appeals. Their assignments were initially for a period of two years but they have been invited to make expressions of interest to continue when required for a further term at the end of that period. So far 156 of these judges have said that they would like to continue to work in the IAC.
As President of FtTIAC I have been greatly assisted by the support, proactive thinking, and, from time to time, constructive criticism, of the Council of Immigration Judges. I work closely with the Council, with which whenever possible I share information and exchange ideas. I pay particular tribute to Designated Judge Russell Campbell, the current outgoing President of the Council, who has held that post for the last two years. Russell has been an invaluable conduit for the varied (and sometimes very emphatic!) views of individual judges. He is now taking on the Chairmanship of the Tribunals Forum, where he will perform the same tasks for Tribunals generally. In that role and as a member of the Judges' Council he will, among other things, be in a position to ensure that the continuing development of assignment and cross-ticketing is carried out in a way which is beneficial both to the judiciary and to the interests of justice. I welcome his successor as President of the CIJ, Judge Christopher Buckwell, who I wish well in his new post.
We are taking an active and constructive interest in the current HMCTS Reform Programme, an important part of which is the rationalisation of the Courts and Tribunals estate. One aspect is that the leases on a many of FtTIAC estates come up for renewal in the Spring of 2017. I am working closely with administration to identify appropriate venues and, in some instances it may require the Tribunal to move. It is planned that we shall be moving from Sheldon Court Birmingham to the CFT in the centre of Birmingham in 2017. Works have commenced at Taylor House, London for the provision of more courts to be used by the Tax Tribunal. FtTIAC is sometimes criticised, I consider unjustly, for low usage of hearing rooms. This arises because almost all decisions have to be reserved and given in writing so that they can be translated to and understood by appellants for whom English is not their first language. Separate chambers are provided for judges to carry out this writing up. Repeated reviews have shown that for every hour in a hearing room, three hours are required for the tasks which fall to be carried out in chambers. Hence hearing room usage is by comparison relatively low. I have long suggested with the support of the CIJ that this problem could be resolved by rationalising the layout of the hearing centres to provide one room in which a judge would carry out all their tasks. Such alterations to the estate would, however, involve capital costs which may not be able to be met in the current financial climate. This is one problem to which at present there seems no prospect of solution
Another limb of the Reform Programme is improvement in the efficiency of working practices. In this respect FtTIAC is currently working on the impact of the judgment of the Court of appeal in The Lord Chancellor v Detention Action, etc. [2015]EWCA Civ 840, the effect of which is to render unlawful decisions made under the 2014 "Fast Track" Procedure Rules. The decision is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, but if it is upheld, new procedures will need to be implemented to deal justly with those appeals. I hope to able to report back progress in a year's time.
As to other aspects of working practices, FtTIAC is, to a large extent, limited in the scope of flexibility by the requirement that all its substantive decisions must be given in writing in reserved judgments with full reasons. This leads to a need to set out evidence, submissions and reasons at considerable length to avoid successful onward appeals. It may be that in the longer term, liaison with the Training Judges, the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal could take place with a view to evolving protocols as to the content and form of decisions so as to avoid unnecessarily long, repetitive and time consuming decisions. At the moment, however, any such development has not progressed beyond the stage of informal discussions among the senior judiciary in FtTIAC.
The efficient conduct by judges of the Tribunal's business is facilitated by the case management powers in Rule 4 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014. These are helpfully augmented by an enlarged power in the new Rule 9 to make wasted costs orders, and to award costs where a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings. It is to be hoped that, as in the civil and criminal courts, the existence of such powers, rather than their actual exercise, will encourage fuller and more constructive compliance with procedural requirements and directions, with the result of greater efficiency in the dispatch of business.
The increased use of information technology proposed by the Reform Programme is being embraced by FtTIAC. Decisions of the Tribunal are currently promulgated to the parties electronically, and document bundles are often transmitted to hearing centres by e-mail. There appears to be considerable scope for increased efficiency by making the filing and service of documents by e-mail mandatory, at least where appellants are legally represented. There is significantly more work to be done in this direction, but considerable progress in efficiency is likely to be achievable by increased use of IT.
We still do not, however, routinely have facilities to record all our hearings. This is a serious deficit which I hope will be resolved as part of the Reform Programme. While we do have the benefit of video linking for some hearings, notably bail applications, it has to be said that the technical quality of the equipment often leaves much to be desired. This is a facility ripe for improvement.
The immigration jurisdiction has always made high demands on the judiciary's "judgecraft". New provisions inserted into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have substantially reduced the rights of appellants to "in country" appeal hearings. This means that, increasingly, judges are being required to hear appeals where the appellant, having been removed from the UK, is not present in front of them. Further, when an appellant is present, he or she may well be unrepresented. This is of course now a widespread phenomenon throughout Courts and Tribunals, but made more difficult in the IAC by the fact that the vast majority of hearings have to be conducted through interpreters.
Underpinning the efficient work of any Tribunal or Court must be excellence in training. I am happy to say that this requirement is very amply fulfilled in FtTIAC by Designated Training Judges Julian Phillips and John Manuell with the oversight of Resident Judge Deans and backup from a team of Judges and Designated Judges. They have, among other achievements, successfully organised the training, on an unprecedented scale, of the 197 cross-ticketed judges from other jurisdictions referred to above. They also carry out regular, routine training for the entire jurisdiction on new developments in the law. Feedback from attendees at their training has been uniformly and deservedly excellent. Our sincere thanks are due to them for making the lives of all of us easier by providing the knowledge and techniques for the conduct of our daily work.
Judicial leadership at FtTIAC hearing centres has traditionally been the province of the Resident Judges, and of Designated Judges selected not only for their knowledge of immigration law but also for their qualities of leadership and management skills. Currently, in the absence of any competitions for the Designated Judge post, the needs of hearing centres have been augmented by the appointment of Assistant Resident Judges who were recently welcomed into their roles.
I am sad to report the deaths during the year of the following past and present colleagues: Godfrey Napthine and William Mark-Bell.
Finally, I acknowledge the retirements during the past year of 33 colleagues, including RJ Nicholas Renton, to whom we all send our best wishes for a long and happy retirement. In the near future we shall be losing RJs Christine Roberts and Francis Pinkerton who have both been stalwarts in exercising leadership and management functions at the Bradford and London (Taylor House) centres respectively. They will be hard acts to follow.
In the past Resident Judges in FtTIAC have been appointed through an expression of interest from the Upper Tribunal. After consultation with the SPT and the JAC, future appointments to the Resident Judge role will be through an open JAC competition. It is hoped that recruitment and appointments will be made during the first half of next year to replace vacancies.
Finally I would wish to welcome Sir Ernest Ryder as our new Senior President. He has a wealth of experience and, from conversations I have had with him, many initiatives which I am sure will bring Courts and Tribunals closer with improved efficiency. I am sure we all wish him well in these endeavours.