Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002511

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/01458/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 26th of September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS

Between

Kwesi Warren Williams
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Pullinger, Counsel, instructed by Citywide Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Lecointe, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 24 September 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 7 April 2025 dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 24 July 2024 to refuse his human rights claim.
2. The appellant is a Jamaican national who is subject to deportation proceedings in respect of various offences for which he has received several prison sentences, the most recent of which in 2021 resulted in a sentence of 58 months imprisonment and four years imprisonment to run concurrently. The appellant asserted that he met Exception 1 of s117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and that there were very compelling circumstances why he should not be deported over and above the Exceptions, namely the fact that he has been lawfully resident in the UK since he was 9 years old and has strong family ties in the UK.
3. The day prior to the hearing, the appellant applied for an adjournment on the basis that he had been to hospital on an emergency basis that day and was too unwell to attend the hearing. At the hearing the judge dealt with the adjournment request as a preliminary matter and despite the respondent not opposing the adjournment request, proceeded to hear the appeal in the absence of the appellant or any other witness. The judge gave reasons for this from [4] to [8] of the decision. The judge dealt with the appeal by way of submissions only and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Article 8 ECHR.
4. The grounds of appeal assert that the tribunal acted unfairly by refusing to adjourn the appeal and proceeding to hear in his absence and secondly that the tribunal erred in its approach to s117C NIAA 2002.
5. On 16 July 2025 the Upper Tribunal granted permission on both grounds.
6. A corrective skeleton argument was submitted the day prior to the error of law hearing.
7. At the outset of the error of law hearing, Ms Lecointe for the respondent indicated that although no rule 24 response had been prepared the respondent intended to oppose the appeal.
8. Mr Pullinger then went through in detail the medical evidence which was before the First-tier Tribunal. The appellant attended A and E on 21 March 2025 with suspected food poisoning after eating seafood. He had diarrhoea and vomiting. The medical letter stated that the impression was that he had gastroenteritis. He was discharged on the same day with medication. The appellant attended Accident and Emergency again on 25 March 2025 which was the day before the hearing. The medical evidence stated that he had abdominal pain. He was given an intravenous solution of sodium chloride and paracetamol and was prescribed with codeine and ondansetron a drug to combat nausea. He pointed to the fact that the respondent did not oppose the adjournment request.
9. At this point, Ms Lecointe indicated that she had not had proper sight of the medical evidence before the First-tier Tribunal. She had not realised that the appellant had attended hospital on an emergency basis, nor the reasons for the attendance at A and E. She then confirmed that having reviewed the evidence, the respondent no longer intended to oppose the appeal and conceded that it was procedurally unfair for the Tribunal not to have adjourned the appeal.
10. I am satisfied that the respondent’s concession is entirely appropriate. The appellant had supplied strong evidence that the day before the hearing that he was very unwell and that he had been so for several days and that he had been prescribed medication which would make him drowsy. The respondent did not oppose the adjournment request and it is unclear why it was unfair to the respondent for the appeal to proceed in these circumstances. There had been no previous failure to cooperate in bad faith on the part of the appellant, he had been co-operating with his representatives to provide statements and other supporting evidence in support of his appeal and the issue was of considerable importance to him, involving in essence his permanent exclusion from the UK after he had lived in the UK lawfully since he was a young child. Further, there were factual issues in dispute and the Tribunal would have benefited from hearing live evidence. Pushing the appeal back to be heard later in the day was not a remedy where the appellant was unwell. Having considered all of these factors in the round, I am satisfied that question of whether the appeal could proceed fairly in the absence of the appellant could only be answered in the negative and that the Tribunal’s decision to proceed in his absence resulted in procedural unfairness which has vitiated the entire decision.
11. Having had regard to Begum (remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046, both parties were in agreement that because the proceedings were procedurally unfair that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo. When deciding whether to depart from the general principle that a case will be retained in the Upper Tribunal, I must consider the nature of the unfairness and the extent of the impact on the findings overall. I am satisfied that a fresh hearing before a different judge is required to provide the appellant with a fair hearing.
Notice of Decision
12. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law.
13. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside in its entirety with no findings preserved.
14. The decision is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Eldridge.

R J Owens

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

24 September 2025