Kiarie and Byndloss v Secretary of State for the Home Department · [2017] UKSC 42
UK Supreme Court · 14 June 2017
Mr Kiarie and Mr Byndloss faced deportation after criminal convictions. Each wanted to rely on his private and family life in the UK. Each retained a right of appeal. The certificates issued by the Home Secretary meant they would have to exercise it from outside the country.
What could the tribunal learn from a witness abroad?
A written statement could set out the men’s accounts. It could not answer a question the tribunal had yet to ask. The quality of a parent’s relationship with a child, or the credibility of an account of rehabilitation, could depend on the tribunal hearing the appellant and testing his answers.
The Supreme Court examined the arrangements actually available. Who could find and pay for suitable equipment abroad? How would counsel obtain confidential instructions while the appeal was being heard? The suggestion of a video link left those issues unresolved. The court quashed both certificates. It did not decide whether either man’s underlying deportation appeal should succeed.
What to establish in a case today
The judgment concerned the arrangements before the court in 2017. A remote hearing can work. Whether it gives a particular appellant an effective opportunity to participate depends on the evidence and the facilities available. Keep the decision, any certificate and the date it was received. Identify the disputed matters that require live evidence and record specific barriers to taking part. If removal is scheduled, seek urgent advice from an authorised immigration adviser or solicitor.
Read the judgment in Kiarie and Byndloss v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Current Home Office guidance on section 94B certification
Related reading · Children’s interests in immigration decisions
