Annual report of the Senior President of Tribunals shows recovery of case numbers in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber as Covid-19 restrictions ease

This year's annual report of the Senior President of Tribunals was published yesterday. You can download the 173-page report here.

As we do every year on EIN, we've excerpted the sections from the report on the Immigration and Asylum Chamber and reproduced them below. Sir Peter Lane contributes a review of the Upper Tribunal and Judge Michael Clements contributes a review of the First-tier Tribunal. The annual report also highlights and summarises the most notable decisions of the year in the Upper Tribunal.

The Senior President of Tribunals, the Right Honourable Sir Keith Lindblom, notes in the report's foreword that the Covid-19 restrictions have gradually eased in the tribunals over the past year and attention has now turned to tackling the backlog of cases.

Judge Michael Clements' review of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) shows that the number of cases disposed of has recovered from a low of 20,000 in 2020/21 to 41,000 in 2021/22.

Judge Clements added: "The pandemic has had a significant effect on our caseload over the past two years, as a result of the reduced numbers of decisions made by the Secretary of State carrying a right of appeal to the Tribunal. I anticipate sharp increase in the number of appeals during 2022/23 as the Secretary of State returns to pre-pandemic decision levels."

In his review of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Sir Peter Lane highlights how the pandemic has led to the increase in the use of technology and video evidence by the Tribunal.

Sir Peter Lane also highlights the changes brought by Brexit and by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. On the latter, he notes: "This Act makes a number of significant changes to the law concerning international protection and to the appeals regime. […] The NBA 2022 also provides that the Upper Tribunal will acquire a new appellate jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, there will be a right of appeal direct to the Upper Tribunal under new section 82A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in certain cases where an individual makes a protection or human rights claim at a later stage in the process than the Secretary of State considers appropriate."

Judge Clements also covers the changes brought by the Act in the First-tier Tribunal, stating: "The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will significantly affect the work of the Tribunal and judicial training is already planned. Of particular note is the prospect of a new statutory right of appeal against an age assessment decision. Currently these decisions are made by a Local Authority and they are only subject to judicial review proceedings which are generally transferred for hearing in the Upper Tribunal IAC. In future, age assessments will not only be made by a Local Authority but also by an official of the Secretary of State 'designated' to make them. There will be a new statutory right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the age assessment decisions of both. Only time will tell how large an increase there will be in the numbers of age assessment decisions made as a result of these changes."

Excerpts from the Senior President of Tribunals' annual report follow below:

___________________________________

SENIOR PRESIDENT
OF TRIBUNALS

Senior President of
Tribunals'
Annual Report

2022

[…]

Annex A Upper Tribunals

[…]

Immigration and Asylum Chamber
President: Sir Peter Lane

The jurisdictional landscape

The changes wrought to the immigration jurisdiction by the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union (EU) mean that cases possessing a European element continue to be a particular focus of work, with the previous legislative framework continuing to be relevant for older appeals whilst the new post-departure regime assumes ever-greater significance. In Geci (EEA Regs: transitional provisions; appeal rights) [2021] UKUT 285 (IAC), the Tribunal gave a detailed exposition of the changed landscape. EU concepts such as "sham" marriages (otherwise known as marriages of convenience) and extended family members (durable relationships) received attention in Saeed (Deception – knowledge – marriage of convenience) [2022] UKUT 00018 (IAC) and Singh (EEA; EFMs) [2021] UKUT 319 (IAC) respectively.

The chamber has continued to be very active in its important and unique role as the giver of country guidance; a crucial component in ensuring consistent decision-making in protection claims and appeals. The countries which were the subject of comprehensive country guidance decisions in 2021/22 were Sri Lanka, Somalia and Ethiopia. In XX (PJAK – sur place activities – Facebook) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 00023 (IAC), the Tribunal gave country guidance on the consequences for a safe return of an Iranian national having posted anti-regime messages etc on Facebook whilst in the United Kingdom as an asylum seeker.

One of the effects of the pandemic has been to increase the use of technology which enables evidence and submissions to be given to a court or tribunal by video from a place, perhaps far distant from the courtroom. In Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad; Nare guidance) UKUT 286 (IAC), a Presidential panel considered the need for permission to be provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office by a foreign state before evidence can be given to a tribunal sitting in the United Kingdom.

As well as those just mentioned, some indication of the breadth and depth of the chamber's reported cases can be seen from the UTIAC's Digest, set out in the Senior President's Annual Report.

In the past few years, we have referred in reported cases to the undesirability of "Cart" judicial review challenges of decisions of the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal being seen as merely an untrammelled third or fourth opportunity to advance criticisms of that Tribunal's decision, which did not feature in the grounds presented to the Upper Tribunal. Any such concerns will, however, become irrelevant since section 2 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 will, in effect, abolish the "Cart" judicial review jurisdiction.

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NBA 2022) received the Royal Assent on 28 April. This Act makes a number of significant changes to the law concerning international protection and to the appeals regime.

The First-tier Tribunal is to be given the function of deciding appeals against age assessment decisions in respect of persons from abroad who claim to be under 18. Currently, challenges to such decisions are brought by way of judicial review and are determined in the Upper Tribunal.

The NBA 2022 also provides that the Upper Tribunal will acquire a new appellate jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, there will be a right of appeal direct to the Upper Tribunal under new section 82A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in certain cases where an individual makes a protection or human rights claim at a later stage in the process than the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

People and places

In 2021, we said goodbye to Upper Tribunal Judge Razia Kekic. Razia has been a stalwart of the immigration jurisdiction, both as a judge and, before that, as a practitioner. Her regular presence at Field House is much missed but we wish her all the best for a busy retirement, not least enjoying her status as grandparent.

Following the easing of Covid-19 restrictions, we have been able to resume sittings in Parliament House, Edinburgh and to re-establish the circuiting system in Manchester.

High Court judges are sitting in the Chamber again on a regular basis and we look forward to welcoming back judges of the Court of Session later in the year.

We welcomed Martine Muir as Head of the President's Office and, more recently, Laxmi Bhudia as assistant to the Principial Resident Judge and to the President.

Surrinder Singh and her administrative team continue to provide a first-rate service, in what are still somewhat difficult circumstances.

The range of activities undertaken by judicial colleagues, serving on committees and groups of various kinds, both within the chamber and more widely, is such that a great deal of this report would be taken up by naming and thanking them individually. I am extremely grateful to them all.

I must, however, pay specific tribute to my presiding judicial colleagues. Mark Ockelton, as Vice President, makes an enormous contribution to the chamber and to the wider immigration jurisdiction. Louis Kopieczek has continued to be a superb Principal Resident Judge, guiding us back towards post-Covid normality with a deft blend of compassion, insight and firmness, which commands the respect of his colleagues. Sue Pitt takes on the PRJ role with equal skill, during Louis's absence, whilst Judith Gleeson continues to be concerned for the chamber's deputy Judges, who are a vital resource and who have been suffering from the vagaries of the chamber's workload.

Our lawyers and caseworkers are a vital part of the chamber. We were delighted to welcome back Nadia Manzoor, following her 18 month secondment with the Law Commission.

Upper Tribunal Judge Melanie Plimmer has had another successful year as Judge in Charge of Training. Part of that success lies in her ability to encourage colleagues to get actively involved in delivering training, whether by giving presentations or acting as facilitators.

Reform

The main event of the year has been the adoption of CE Filing for our appeals and judicial reviews. This has involved a huge amount of work on the part of the administrative team at Field House. They coped magnificently. I am also grateful to my judicial colleagues, who have made useful suggestions as to how the system might be finessed to make it easier for a judge to navigate.

Diversity and inclusion

Last year, I mentioned that the Senior President of Tribunals had asked leadership judges to prepare plans to encourage judicial diversity. In the year that has followed, there has been a huge amount of activity on this front. In this regard, I am enormously grateful to Upper Tribunal Judge Gaenor Bruce, who has thrown herself into her lead role with vast energy and commitment.

The work has fallen into three areas. We have launched our Strategy to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in UTIAC. Our judges have supported and mentored prospective judges from within the profession. Meanwhile, Field House has continued its long tradition of outreach to pre-pupillage students, with two projects launched during 2021.

We began by drafting a strategy document, setting out how UTIAC aims to work towards and implement the goals set out in the Lord Chief Justice's Five Year Strategy on diversity and inclusion. Our working group comprised me and the Principal Resident Judge, Diversity Leads Upper Tribunal Judges Bruce and Melanie Plimmer, the Chair of our Welfare Committee, Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor, and our nominated Judicial Office Holder for Grievance, Reporting Wrongdoing and Whistleblowing, Upper Tribunal Judge Gleeson. Consultation with colleagues on the strategy was launched in June 2021, with the final draft being introduced at a training event held in February 2022. The Strategy is accompanied by an ever-evolving checklist of aims and tasks, which is regularly reviewed by Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce and me.

During the course of the year, UTIAC judges have seen the strategy implemented in several ways. Initiatives to improve inclusion and promote onward career progression have included the offer to all judges of one-on-one meetings with the President. The presiding judiciary now has a good view of colleagues' particular experience and interests. The PRJ has reviewed case allocation processes, ensuring there are appropriate opportunities to sit on panels (including with visiting High Court judges). Invitations for expressions of interest have been issued for a number of positions and roles within the Chamber, enabling judges who have not yet had the opportunity to do so to sit on the Reporting Committee and the Country Guidance Advisory Group; and to draft commentaries for case reports produced for judges by the Legal and Research Department.

Diversity and inclusion matters took centre stage during our training events, when colleagues were provided with a list of key contacts, policies and aims; invited to contribute ideas; and encouraged to participate in implementing the Strategy.

The chamber's salaried judges have taken an active part in supporting and mentoring prospective judicial candidates from within the legal profession. As well as supporting individual candidates, our judges have worked with a variety of external organisations. These include the Inns of Court, the Law Society, CILEX, Generation Success, Access to the Bar and the Pre-Application Judicial Education Programme (PAJE). The intention is to provide training, mentoring and marshalling opportunities to candidates from diverse backgrounds. Moving forward, our deputies will have the opportunity to access one-to-one confidential career-progression mentoring from salaried colleagues.

Our offering has not, however, been limited to current lawyers. We have also spent much of the past year working with students who aspire to join the profession. A number of our judges have conducted outreach visits to schools, and we have played a key role in the establishment of Advocates for Change, a collaboration between the judiciary, Queen Mary (University of London) and Future Leaders, an organisation working to improve life chances for 6th formers in East London.

Going into 2022, there were over 200 young people from diverse backgrounds inducted into the programme and ready to marshal for judges at Field House and over 20 other hearing centres across London. Participants have had the opportunity to meet, and stay in contact with judges, and have benefitted not only from practical advice about how to go about entering the legal profession, but from wider discussions about the law, and why it might matter to them.

Feedback from students who have visited Field House in the past year has been extremely positive: "I enjoyed every moment of my placement", "this amazing opportunity was just outstanding", "it was truly invaluable" and "it was a once in a lifetime experience" are just a flavour (although one hopes the last comment will not prove correct).

Such is the success of the Advocates for Change programme that UTIAC judges who sit on circuit in Manchester are now working to roll out a similar project in the North West in the next academic year.

Running in parallel to the Advocates for Change programme, we have also established a relationship with Mansfield College, Oxford. Mansfield was selected because of its very diverse student body: 26.6% of its students identify as black and minority ethnic, it has a high proportion of mature students and it was the first Oxford college to be recognised as a "college of sanctuary", with a number of scholarships being awarded to refugee and migrant students. It also has a longstanding emphasis on human rights law, as it is home to the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights. We have already hosted two Mansfield students as marshals, with more to come in the summer of 2022.

[…]

Annex B First-tier Tribunals

[…]

Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Chamber President: Judge Michael Clements

Jurisdictional landscape

The Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FtTIAC) is one of the largest of the seven chambers of the First-tier Tribunal. It currently deals with appeals against decisions of the Secretary of State or an Entry Clearance Officer, although this is likely to change with the advent of the new statutory right of appeal against age assessment decisions. These will extend not only to decisions made by an official of the Secretary of State "designated" to make them, but also to decisions made by a Local Authority.

There is a varied case load. Appeals come from persons seeking international protection in the United Kingdom (asylum or humanitarian protection) for a variety of reasons: those suffering war or conflict trauma; trafficking into prostitution or slave labour or at risk because of gender, religion or sexuality. Those convicted of offences in respect of whom a deportation order has been made may also appeal requiring a judge to determine whether the circumstances of the appellant, or their family members, outweigh the public interest in the offender's removal. Where there has been no criminality the judge will be required to decide whether the private and family life established by a person outweigh removal and should allow them to remain in the United Kingdom or be given leave to enter despite their inability to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules. The judge will be required to conduct a balancing exercise between the interests of all those individuals set against the relevant public interest.

Appeals are also made against decisions made under the EEA Regulations and the EU Settlement Scheme. These require not only a judicial assessment of the overall proportionality of the decision under appeal but to determine whether a marriage is valid under the law of a third country, whether a marriage is genuine or whether one individual is genuinely financially dependent upon another. Although some had predicted the demise of such appeals following the EU Withdrawal Agreement, our experience has been instead that there has been a significant increase both in the volume of appeals, and their complexity.

Increasingly the Tribunal hears appeals pursuant to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 against decisions to deprive individuals of their British citizenship, in cases that do not involve the national security, where the right of appeal lies to SIAC. These decisions are of two types; (i) deprivation when the Secretary of State is satisfied the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of deception (s40(3)), and, (ii) deprivation when the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good (s40(2)). The Tribunal is experiencing increasing numbers of both types of appeal. s40(3) cases have increased as a result of the guidance from the Supreme Court that the Secretary of State should cease to treat cases of registration and naturalisation that she believes have been obtained by means of deception as a nullity, and should instead make a deprivation decision so that the individual concerned might enjoy the statutory right of appeal, rather than being required to pursue judicial review proceedings. It is also plain that decisions made pursuant to s40(3) on the basis that it is conducive in the public interest to deprive an individual of their British citizenship have increased as a result of the implementation of the Government's Serious Organised Crime Strategy, and the commitment of the previous Home Secretary to Party Conference that serious criminals would be stripped of their citizenship, so that the individual criminal might lose the benefits of British citizenship, and the activities of organised crime networks might be disrupted.

We have also noted an increasing number of bail applications from those held in immigration detention. It is anticipated that the procedure for issuing those applications will be simplified as they are brought onto the online CCD system later this year. In the meantime, the Tribunal's focus remains on ensuring that such applications are heard as quickly as possible and in line with our Practice Direction.

Our caseload

The number of statutory appeals received and disposed of by FtTIAC is set out in the following table with those of the previous years for comparison. The pandemic has had a significant effect on our caseload over the past two years, as a result of the reduced numbers of decisions made by the Secretary of State carrying a right of appeal to the Tribunal. I anticipate sharp increase in the number of appeals during 2022/23 as the Secretary of State returns to pre-pandemic decision levels.

Reform

Reform has been a constituent part of the future plans of our chamber since March 2018. The FtTIAC Reform Team was the first to conceive and design an end-to-end online appeals process. The vast majority of online appeals have been commenced during the pandemic. This has been achieved by FtTIAC extending the service to include most appeals lodged in the UK where there is a representative and prescribing, by way of Directions (effective from 22 June 2020), that in certain categories appeals are brought in that form unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so. It had been anticipated that bail applications would be brought onto the digital platform before the end of the financial year, but the work is a little delayed. I thank all stakeholders for their support in enabling us to advance this digital process.

Appeals are case managed throughout by a team of Tribunal Caseworkers, now known as Legal Officers, with a view to maximising fairness to the parties and hopefully minimising the need for adjournments. Under the new process cases are not listed until they are ready to be heard. The process provides for greater focus on the key elements of the claim, the key issues that are actually in dispute between the parties and the reasons for that dispute. Before an appeal is listed the Secretary of State will also have thoroughly reviewed the merits of the appeal.

Great care has been taken to ensure that unrepresented appellants are not disadvantaged in their use of the CCD system, and unrepresented appellants are prompted by the system to provide the key details. This allows an effective review of the merits of their appeal by the Secretary of State.

The success of Reform can be measured in the number of appeals that are now compromised and thus withdrawn before final hearing.

The system depends heavily on our dedicated Legal Officers, and their leadership. It is not practical to name everyone, but Bernadette MacQueen, the Senior Legal Manager, does deserve special recognition for her unswerving cheerfulness and diligence and hard work.

As with every major project, this one has not been without its challenges. Thankfully technological problems have been limited and of brief duration, and for that I must thank Pavanpal Dady and his team. There have been may others who have made, and who continue to make, positive contributions to continually improve the service we provide.

Emergence from the pandemic

As we return to normality, or to a new normal, we find that increasing numbers of stakeholders express a wish for either an entirely remote hearing, or a hybrid hearing that allows one or more to attend court user to attend remotely. Face to face hearings are, in my view, the default position. I accept however that hybrid or fully remote hearings may suit some, and that for some vulnerable individuals a remote hearing may offer a better opportunity to give their best evidence. There will also be occasions when to make the best use of its limited resources the Tribunal will need to list hearings before a judge sitting remotely. This is the case in many other jurisdictions.

I have also been greatly impressed over the last twelve months by the flexibility displayed by both the Tribunal and its users in a collaborative approach to accommodate those who, for whatever reason, have found themselves able to work, but unable to travel. No doubt that will continue.

It is however very clear that not everyone is always able to access a remote hearing satisfactorily, and obvious dangers to the conduct of a fair hearing arise from that. Even if a hearing has safely begun by way of a remote hearing, the Tribunal will remain vigilant to ensure that it remains a fair hearing throughout.

In short, listing decisions will continue to be driven by the circumstances of the parties rather than their representatives, and they will remain judicial decisions.

New ways of working

As I write we have no firm date for the move from the CVP platform to the VHS platform because of the technical difficulties identified with the latter as a result of the Pilot of this system run by the Newport hearing centre. However, I am pleased to write that the chamber has been using Work Allocation since the beginning of July; early reports from the judiciary suggest the tech is working well, and I hope this sets the tone for successful deployment of Scheduling and Listing into the jurisdiction later in the reform programme.

Although progress continues to be made in this area, it is plain that further work is required to allow large volumes of digital documents to be handled and accessed with a similar ease to a paper file. Part of this requires the adoption of a sensible and commonly used document naming system. Another part requires all court users to adopt the use of pdf bundles of documents that are appropriately paginated, bookmarked and indexed. It can otherwise be an extremely frustrating and time-consuming search for an individual digital document within an electronic folder.

As the technology available to us develops we will continue to explore how we can make better use of the judicial resources available, consistent with our primary obligation to deliver fair hearings.

In this respect the Tribunal continues to give close scrutiny to the management and hearing of applications for bail from those in immigration detention. As a result of the pandemic, hearings have routinely been dealt with remotely with the applicant joining from their detention centre or prison. Only occasionally have applications needed to be heard in the applicant's absence. This approach has eliminated the delay and administrative burden associated with arranging a detainee's physical production. It has shortened the lead time between application and hearing. Once bail applications are brought onto the CCD platform, I anticipate further time savings may be made.

We will continue to research the effects of video hearings upon outcomes and court users. I take the number of anecdotal reports of the effects of remote working upon the judiciary very seriously and further research in this area is clearly justified. I know that many are concerned about fatigue and eye strain but there may be wider issues to consider. There are clear benefits to using remote hearings "in appropriate cases", but I will remain vigilant in ensuring that these are properly identified.

Video evidence from overseas

Following the Upper Tribunal decision in Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad; Nare guidance) [2021] UKUT 286 (IAC) which amended the guidance previously given in Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 00443 (IAC), I issued my own Presidential Guidance Note 1 of 2022. Following consultation with Judicial Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office upon a streamlined process for ascertaining the stance adopted by an individual nation, and to avoid the need for individuals to pay fees to do so, I have now been able to offer revised guidance.

The obligation continues to rest upon the party proposing to adduce oral evidence from overseas by video or telephone link, to establish to the satisfaction of the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) that there is no legal or diplomatic barrier to their doing so. I recognise that some find this frustrating, but there are sound reasons for the cautious approach that must be taken. The issue is far more complex than simply ascertaining that the technology permits a secure call to be made to an individual who can then satisfy a judge that they are who they claim to be, and that they are free from interference or prompting. Extension of the courtroom overseas raises both legal and diplomatic issues. Participation by an individual without the permission of the host nation can, in some countries, amount to the commission of a criminal offence. Many nations could be expected to take grave diplomatic offence if the United Kingdom were to unilaterally extend a courtroom into their territory. Moreover, in the context of a protection appeal, any request for permission of the host nation would need to be handled with the utmost care for fear that it would disclose the existence of the protection claim, or the identity of the individual seeking protection. Following the Withdrawal Agreement, the United Kingdom lost the benefit of the provisions of EC 1348/2000 which provided reciprocal arrangements between member states. It is also unlikely that hearings before the Tribunal fall within the definition of a "civil or commercial matter" thus no assistance can be gained from the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters. Even if it did, the UK has not accepted every country's Accession and not every country has confirmed the lack of domestic legal obstacles to using a video link for live evidence.

Nationality and Borders Act 2022

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will significantly affect the work of the Tribunal and judicial training is already planned. Of particular note is the prospect of a new statutory right of appeal against an age assessment decision. Currently these decisions are made by a Local Authority and they are only subject to judicial review proceedings which are generally transferred for hearing in the Upper Tribunal IAC. In future, age assessments will not only be made by a Local Authority but also by an official of the Secretary of State "designated" to make them. There will be a new statutory right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the age assessment decisions of both. Only time will tell how large an increase there will be in the numbers of age assessment decisions made as a result of these changes.

We will also need to introduce new procedures for the new category of "Accelerated Detained Appeals" to ensure that appellants enjoy a fair hearing, whilst making provision for the accelerated process that will be expected of the Tribunal so that decisions may be promulgated within the anticipated 25 days from the lodgement of the appeal.

We look forward to the new ability to direct both parties to an appeal to appoint a single joint expert to advise upon a disputed issue. We anticipate that this will significantly assist our case management efforts to ensure that the range of issues actually in dispute within an appeal is narrowed before the final hearing, and to maximise the number of appeals that can be resolved by agreement and without the need for a hearing.

Other developments

It is essential that FtTIAC is an inclusive, diverse chamber which is underpinned by equality and respect. Diversity and inclusion benefit us all. They lead to better working practices, enhance collegiality and make for better overall decision making. As President, my commitment to these objectives is echoed in the Judicial Diversity and Inclusion Strategy and the SPT's vision for all Tribunals.

Our Diversity and Inclusion Committee will be integral to implementing Equality, Diversity and Inclusion initiatives within our chamber. It builds on and cements the principles within the work of our Tribunal. The committee is led by Resident Judge Juliet Grant-Hutchison with a consultative pool of judges. Like the SPT Diversity Taskforce, the committee will focus on the objectives identified in the Judicial Diversity and Inclusion Strategy. The initiatives put forward will be pragmatic, research-based and effective. The implementation of these will take hard work and time with all our judges working in collaboration. This will be an ongoing, long-term programme of commitment and engagement. During the pandemic FtTIAC judges have continued to rise to the challenge of new and different ways of working. We have shown ourselves to be dynamic and innovative such that I have every confidence that our Tribunal can achieve these objectives.

Despite the limitations imposed by the pandemic, judges continued to deliver a programme of judicial outreach, affirming FtTIAC's commitment to diversity, inclusion, social mobility, and the improvement of community relations. We continue to offer opportunities for students from schools, colleges of further education, and universities to discuss their work with judges and the realities of a judicial career. This is in addition to the mentoring offered to would-be judicial officeholders. Students have begun to visit our hearings once again, and our judges have returned to making visits to schools, colleges and universities: initiatives which are much in demand.

To assist judges, we have reviewed all our Practice Directions and Practice Statements to identify what consolidation can be effected. Key materials are accessible through the FtTIAC judicial website under the editorship of Judge Lindsay Connal, who has also assumed the editorial role for our monthly judicial newsletter, "Tribune".

Despite the difficulties resulting from the pandemic, FtTIAC has continued to increase and develop its international ties through engagement with the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges, and the European Judicial Training Network. A number of our judges are members of the IARMJs Working Parties, with Julian Phillips, Mark Symes, and Kyrie James also acting as Rapporteurs for the Association's Detention, COI Expert Evidence and Social Media, and, Vulnerable Persons, Working Parties respectively.

Through our international ties we continue to contribute to the training of the judiciary within other jurisdictions, and to affirm the Rule of Law. Invitations to assist in specific training projects have been received from Cyprus, Bangladesh, and the Cayman Islands.

I extend my thanks to Resident Judge Julian Phillips, our judicial training lead, and his two deputy training judges, Anna-Rose Landes and Jonathan Holmes, for their perseverance to bring judicial training back to a face to face medium safely, notwithstanding the continuing practical difficulties posed by the pandemic. We have, as a result, been able to successfully deliver a full programme of both Residential and Continuing Training, together with two Induction Training courses for new salaried, and fee-paid, colleagues. As I write, planning is underway for the delivery of training to all our judges on the new Nationality and Borders Act and our Autumn programme of training.

People

There have been a significant number of retirements amongst the senior leadership of the Tribunal. Three Resident Judges, Frank Appleyard, Christine Martin, and David Zucker, together with three Designated Judges Graeme Peart, John McClure, and Edward Woodcraft have retired. Their departures have had a significant impact upon the management of the Tribunal already. Whilst a recruitment exercise is underway to seek replacements for the three Resident Judges, the Designated Judge posts will not be filled so, increasingly, I and my remaining Resident Judges, rely on our loyal Assistant Resident Judges to assist in the management of their hearing centres.

I have also indicated to the SPT that I intend to stand down as Chamber President this calendar year. It has been a privilege not only serving as a judge but also as President.

I wish to convey my personal thanks not only to my immediate team of Resident Judges, but also in particular to Jane Blakelock and Martine Muir (the presidential team at Field House), together with Natalie Mountain and her team for their continued hard work and support, not only to me personally, but also the Tribunal. My thanks also go to the administrative team in the Senior President's office for its helpful and unstinting support.

Conclusion

My report would not be complete without acknowledgement that very little would have been achieved this year without the hard work and extraordinary dedication of our judges and administrative staff. In extremely difficult circumstances they have risen to the challenges we have faced with good humour and resolve. I am not only extremely grateful to them but proud of all those who have devoted so much of their imagination, effort and patience ensuring that our work has continued during the pandemic. Our decisions profoundly affect people's lives, and I have been impressed that the challenges we have faced have been met with the recognition that, if we were unable to make those decisions or had to delay them, the consequences would be extremely damaging to many.

[…]

Annex D Important Cases

[…]

Cases from Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber