The 2019 Upper Tribunal case of MR v Secretary of State for the Home Department PA/02377/2019 did little to allay concerns among immigration practitioners and clients that some judges may harbour bias viewpoints which negatively influence their decision making. The appellant, a citizen of Iraq, had originally applied for protection in the UK on account of being targeted by ISIS for selling alcohol and being an atheist in April 2019. The case reached the First-Tier tribunal and was heard by Judge Geraint Jones QC who dismissed the appeal finding the claim to lack any credibility. The Upper Tribunal was then asked to review the conduct of the First-Tier judge, which had been the subject of a complaint.
Upper Tribunal Judge Martin on reviewing the Decisions and Reasons from the First-Tier hearing stated that an impartial observer sitting in court at this hearing would have come to the conclusion that this appellant did not have a fair hearing. The Decision and Reasons itself gives the impression that this particular judge considers all asylum seekers to be liars. It may be that the appellant's claim may be found to be not credible but the terms in which the adverse credibility findings are couched in this Decision and Reasons does not give the impression of an impartial assessment of the evidence. The judge in question has now retired from the law, and the case will be reheard at the First-Tier tribunal.
It is first important to understand that there are two main types of bias, as follows:
Actual bias occurs when a judge has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, i.e. they are committed to a particular outcome such that any evidence and arguments which are presented will not alter that outcome. This doesn't necessarily mean that the judge is in some way linked with the party/s to the case (although this may be the case), but rather that because they might stand to benefit, their judgement might be altered.
Apparent bias, on the other hand, occurs when a judge may not necessarily have a personal interest in the outcome, but they act in a way which is not impartial - perhaps due to their behaviour, interests, or affiliations.
If there are strong grounds for the existence of actual bias before a case commences, such as a clear personal relationship between a judge and a party to a case, then that judge should recuse themselves (i.e. stand aside), allowing the case to be overseen by someone else. If they have not recused themselves, then where possible, listing offices should be informed of any potential conflict, who can then use their discretion to determine whether to reallocate judges. It should also be noted that court listing offices are very alert to such potential circumstances.
If there is a concern or suspicion of apparent bias, it is extremely unlikely that a judge will be replaced. It is, however, important to know that the judicial system will treat bias seriously. This is demonstrated by the recent Supreme Court decision in Serafin (Respondent) v Malkiewicz and others (Appellants) 2020.
In this case, the Respondent, R, a Polish builder who also worked as a handyman for a Polish charity had been the subject of claims in Nowy Czas, a newspaper for the Polish community, including allegations of dishonesty, fraud, involvement with charitable institutions for his own gain, and questionable conduct towards women. Acting as a litigant in person, R's case was originally dismissed by a judge on the basis that the allegations in the article were either true or had caused no serious harm to his reputation and that a defence based on a section the Defamations Act 2013 was applicable. This decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal, who concluded that the Defamation Act defence was not valid and, of key relevance to this article, that the judge had acted in an unfair and hostile manner.
The Supreme Court having undertaken a full review of the previous oral hearing, affirmed that the judge should interfere as little as possible in the presentation of oral evidence by litigants in person, who are less able to withstand judicial pressure than professional advocates. In ordering a complete retrial, the judge stated, when one considers the barrage of hostility towards the claimant's case, and towards the claimant himself acting in person, fired by the judge in immoderate, ill-tempered and at times offensive language at many different points during the long hearing, one is driven, with profound regret, to uphold the Court of Appeal's conclusion that he did not allow the claim to be properly presented; that therefore he could not fairly appraise it; and, that, in short, the trial was unfair. Instead of making allowance for the claimant's appearance in person, the judge harassed and intimidated him in ways which surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented. It was ridiculous for the defendants to submit to us that, when placed in context, the judge's interventions were wholly justifiable.
Court cases, especially those involving immigration and family matters can be highly emotive. This is entirely understandable when decisions such as the right to reside in the UK are at stake. The problem is that the perception of bias does not necessarily mean it will occur and may, in fact, be wholly unfounded. In most cases, the hearing will need to proceed, in the knowledge that if bias does eventuate, a higher court will not hesitate to stamp their authority, and will likely insist on the case being reheard.
It's a shame that you dont have an 'Excellent' star rating on here, as my experience with Reiss Edwards is nothing short of an excellent rating. They handled my application for an Indefinite Leave to remain in April 2014 and did my husband's one very recently including my daughter. Every time i have approached them, they have continued to treat me with courtesy, respect and patience. Amar was indeed a very thorough and professional gentleman. He is very knowledgeable, corporative and engaging. He responded to my emails, calls and enquiries promptly. He was always reassuring. I could not have asked for a better Immigration service. I would recommend them over and over again for anyone looking for an immigration advice. They gave me a free immigration advice when i called them, and the quality of the advice was something other charge thousands for. If you need a particular, name, Amar would be it. He exemplifies, for me, the true, professional gentleman. He is a valuable asset to Reiss Edwards.
I am glad that i instructed Reiss Edwards on my visa matter. It started with a 20 minutes free immigration advice. I met with Amar to discuss my ILR refusal. He gave me a great deal of quality advice and decided to take on my messy case. I had doubts on the merits of my case by he was relatively convinced he could win it. That made me quite secure. To be honest, things did not start as quick as I would have wanted, but they kept on communicating the process and state of things to me.A big thank you to Verusha and Foram. They were also very helpful. Brilliant and informative. Their fee was fair and reasonable, especially if you compare them to other law firms and immigration law firms in London; some of whom even told me that i would not be able to get an indefinte leave to remain in this country. The process was long but was worth it. In the end, a big thank you to Reiss Edwards.
Investing over 2 million pounds is defintely not a routine decision. We had to make sure that the Tier 1 investor immigration lawyers that we'd be picking has to be one of the best within the Tier 1 investor category. We contacted Reiss Edwards and they were able to get us not only the Tier 1 investor visa but also suggested profitable investment portfolios in addition to what we already had in mind.
TI have just had British Citizenship application approved. Prior to making the application, i was not sure which law firm i should hire to facilitate the paperwork. After a few hours of research, i decided to go with Reiss Edwards and i must confess that i wasnt disappointed. The immigration lawyers at Reiss Edwards handled my case well and they really knew what they were doing. They were fully aware of what documents I needed and it was easy for them to tell if my case was going to be easy or not. At the end of the day, I have not received my British citizenship within 3 months. If anyone is looking for a good immigration lawyer to handle thier case, contact Reiss Edwards.
My wife's spouse visa extension application was refused by the Home Office and they gave her 14 days to leave the country. We contacted Reiss Edwards and they said "OK don't worry we will sort this out". They put together the list of documents for me to obtain and they prepared a bundle which was as thick as the printer it came out from.We followed everything they asked us to do and in the end we won our appeal and got our spouse visa. We can't recommend them enough and we have promised ourselves never to make any more UK visa applications without them.
The team of lawyers at Reiss Edwards are very professional and friendly people. Their experience in and around UK immigration law is quite extensive; be sure that you application is in safe and competent hands. My immigration matter was an indefinite leave to remain application based on Tier 1 on a self-employment basis. The immigration lawyers at Reiss Edwards made sure that the application was perfect and ready to be accepted. I got a positive decision and I recommend them highly for anyone who needs a UK immigration help.
I contacted Reiss Edwards to help me with my wife's UK settlement visa. They acted with utmost professionalism throughout the entire application. I spoke with Joe Dinh, he is an immigration solicitor and he is one of the best solicitors out there. He ensured that there was little to no room for error. At some point I thought he was over cautious. He remained calmed and continued to assure us on our immigration matter. Most people in his position would have panicked but he was calmed and continued to assure us. We received out positive outcome very quickly.
I have been using Reiss Edwards for three years now for my family's immigration application. Both for my initial application and extension. They are really affordable. The team of solicitors at this firm are probably one of the most efficient and economical in terms of cost. They offered free advice over the phone and spent good time with us before inviting us for consultation.
Reiss Edwards is a top notch immigration service company. The way they handled our documentation and also the list of documents they sent was efficient and top quality. They helped us professionally throughout the process. We are very happy with the immigration advice we received from the team. We highly recommend them.
I used Reiss Edwards immigration lawyers to assist with my immigration matter and that of my family. It was an EX1 application. They dealt with the matter properly and even when complications were coming up from the Home Office, they helped resolve the issue properly. They are very professional and are very popular in London. I am happy to have worked with them.
This is the only firm that i spoke with that didn't ask for money before listening to me, will be using them again.
I used Reiss Edwards for my Tier 2 visa application and it was successful. The team was ever present and happy to answer my question. The caseworker that dealing with my case went on holiday yet by case did not suffer one bit. Another lawyer stepped and took over the case without any hassle.
My Tier 1 Investor Visa was dealt with quickly and without issue. Would recommend Reiss Edwards as an Immigration law firm in London. Thank you to the team.
530 ReviewsREAD ALL REVIEWS