Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
Tell us you have no idea of how the Law works without telling us you have no idea how the Law works
It goes a little bit like this:
Solicitor 1: “My interpretation of the Law is my client has had his human rights breached because of XYZ reasons”
Solicitor 2: “My interpretation of the Law is no human rights have been breached because ABC reasons”
Judge: “Looking at all the evidence my ruling is *insert agreement with Solicitor 1 or 2 here*.”
Get it now?
|
Not with First Tier Tribunals. As long as the First tier Judge fully explains their decision, they can make any decision they want. Common sense, facts, or law don't come into it. It's only if they haven't fully explained their reasons, that the judgement can be challenged for an "error in law". Even then, if it gets to the Upper Tier Tribunal, it's likely to be tossed back to the 1st Tier for another hearing. And so the process repeats itself.
Link to decisions published from the Upper Tribunal Immigration and asylum chamber.