I’ve spent the morning at Taylor House, the London home of (among other things) the Immigration and Asylum First Tier Tribunal.
The security personal at the front desk were rather surprised to see a member of the public and they had to check to see whether I was allowed in.
The tribunal handles “appeals against some decisions made by the Home Office relating to: permission to stay in the UK, deportation from the UK and entry clearance to the UK”
It’s against this backdrop that I find myself in hearing room 14 observing an appeal against a decision which had found that the Appellants marriage was sham. This would mean the appellant, a Ms JCO, did not qualify for Settled Status within the UK.
Mr Shahadoth Karim, the barrister representing Ms JCO, told the tribunal that evidence which “seriously undermines” the Home Office assertion of a false marriage had come to light.
Mr Karim explained that the lower tribunal had found that the marriage was not real on the basis that the ceremony has been conducted by the Reverend Alex Brown at the Church of St Peter and St Paul in St Leonards, East Sussex.
The BBC reported in 2010 that the Reverend Brown had been jailed for four years after conducting “360 sham marriages during a four-year period”.
Since the decision at the lower tribunal Mr Karim explained that a “wealth of new evidence” had emerged, including the marriage certificate, which confirmed the wedding had taken place at a different church before a different vicar.
We also heard from a witness who explained that he recalled the appellant talking about her marriage over a period of several years. The witness told the tribunal that his wife had two pet sheep – Jessica and Jasmine – and that he had joked with Ms JCO about her naming any children those names. It was a “complete surprise” that the marriage had been described as a sham he said.
Ms Wendy Akaigwe, the Presenting Officer appearing for the Home Office, told the tribunal that the Secretary of State maintained that the Marriage was one of convenience. She explained that none of the documents before the tribunal showed the appellants relationship to be any more than housemates within a House of Multiple Occupation.
Explaining that he wished to review all the documents before making a decision the judge said he would provide a full written decision to be handed down within 14 days.
Open Justice
The judge explained to the parties that the tribunal was still in “teething mode” as this was one of the first hearings held face-to-face, with the appellant and witness appearing in person, and counsel appearing over video link. The cause list did not show that this was a so-called Hybrid Hearing and as the room was effectively limited to only three attendees there was a risk that the sitting would have been in private had anyone else connected to the parties turned up.
A short explanation was given to the judge at the beginning of the hearing as to who I was and the reason for my attendance. At the end of the hearing I was asked if I was observing any of the other appeals that day and I was encouraged to come back in the future.
I felt similar kindness was also shown to the appellant who had the procedures of the tribunal and the processes explained in great detail.
Regretfully the Judges name (who I perhaps misheard as Judge Trainer???) did not appear on the cause list, and a phone call to HMCTS resulted in my request failing on data protection grounds.
UPDATE: 17/03/2022 – following two unanswered phone calls and a formal complaint I can reveal it was Tribunal Judge Traynor who heard the appeal. He does not, however, appear on the list of tribunal judges.
Case: EA/06402/2020
10.00am 03/08/2021
Hearing Room 14
First Tier Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Taylor House
Mouse in the Court 