McCloskey: tribunal had to succumb to blackmail

A senior judge has accused solicitors of “blackmailing” the immigration tribunal in an extraordinary attack that also branded their conduct as “disgraceful” and “shameful” in not pursuing the appeals they had lodged.

Mr Justice McCloskey, president of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), also warned that some barristers had wrongly seen their role as protecting their instructing solicitors, rather than acting for their clients.

The judge started his comments in VA (Solicitor’s non-compliance: counsel’s duties : Sri Lanka) [2017] UKUT 12 (IAC) by saying how the Upper Tribunal was from time to time prevented in providing a professional service to the public “by the conduct of legal representatives”.

He said this was the latest of a spate of cases in his lists in recent weeks where this problem had occured.

He continued: “The tribunal was blackmailed in this case by the appellant’s representatives on a previous date, 14 July 2016…

“This is aptly described as ‘blackmail’, in the figurative sense, because while the tribunal could have refused to adjourn the hearing and insisted upon proceeding, this was in truth a theoretical possibility only given the virtual inevitability that any constitution of the tribunal would have given paramount importance to the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing – in this discrete context, a professionally prepared and properly presented hearing.”

“The tribunal has been blackmailed again today. This requires no elaboration.”

Linking to his decision on 1 December in Shabir Ahmed & Ors (sanctions for non-compliance) [2016] UKUT 562 (IAC), McCloskey J said: “The Upper Tribunal has broadcast to the legal profession that it will not hesitate to have recourse to the full panoply of powers at its disposal to prevent this kind of shameful event materialising.

“That order reminds the profession, as I do once again today, that those powers include the initiation of contempt of court proceedings, wasted costs orders and the publication of rulings of this kind on the tribunal’s website.”

In the Ahmed ruling, the judge complained how scarce judicial and administrative resources “have been wasted in dealing with repeated unmeritorious requests by the appellants’ solicitors for an adjournment of today’s hearing”.

“These proceedings, in the Upper Tribunal, have been extant for some five months. During this period no representative has requested a case management hearing or has applied for any variation, or sought clarification of, the Upper Tribunal’s directions.

“No hearing bundle or skeleton argument has been provided by the appellants’ representatives.

“On the eve of today’s hearing it became apparent that at least one of the counsel apparently ‘instructed’ had received no papers from his instructing solicitors. Still further tribunal resources, which took the form of, in effect, constructing a brief for counsel, were wasted in consequence…

“To describe this state of affairs as grossly unsatisfactory is an acute understatement. The Upper Tribunal has been treated with sustained and marked disrespect. The conduct of these appeals has been cavalier and unprofessional. The rule of law has been weakened in consequence.

“Disturbingly, there have been multiple recent examples of similar conduct and misconduct.”

In VA, McCloskey J said the tribunal “succumbs to the blackmail which today’s state of affairs entails and adjourns the hearing”.

He added: “While there are, I trust, many lessons to be learned, I would highlight one in particular. Where solicitors default in their conduct of proceedings, whether by non-compliance with procedural rules or practice directions or specific case management directions or otherwise, it forms no part of instructed counsel’s duty to defend the instructing solicitor.

“The misconception to the contrary was evident in the present case and has manifested itself in others. Counsel represent their client: they do not represent their instructing solicitor.

“Counsel must also be alert to the inevitability of a penetrating judicial enquiry in cases where professional default of the kind manifesting itself in this appeal occurs. It would be prudent of counsel to proactively ensure that the instructing solicitor is in attendance at the hearing in such cases…

“The tribunal will not expect to hear from counsel – unless personally implicated – in circumstances of this kind. Rather, the solicitor having carriage of the case, must, proactively and fully equipped, attend.”

McCloskey J said it “almost defies belief” that the appellant’s solicitor was not in court, but in an addendum to the ruling said they did attend the following day.

“An explanation was provided. While this qualified for a degree of sympathy, it did nothing to allay the tribunal’s concerns about the conduct of this appeal throughout.”


    Readers Comments

  • x says:

    The judgent in VA refers repeatedly to “solicitors”. The firm on the record was Linga & Co. Are they solicitors? No. They are a firm of immigration advisers. So why did the judge call them solicitors? Why did neither of the counsel present correct this?

  • V P Lingajothy says:

    Dear Editor,
    Regarding VA (Solicitor’s non-compliance: counsel’s duties : Sri Lanka) [2017] UKUT 12 (IAC); as far as this case is concerned we took over this case from a firm of solicitors whose business was intervened in by the SRA, at first blush I realised that the client had been wrongly advised and his best interests were not best served by them.
    The case was in tatters and to add to the woes of VA he did not speak a word of English & didn’t have the understanding or the ability to obtain the relevant information to prosecute his appeal in a timely fashion, in these circumstances I had to step in personally to do that for him.
    I felt that his case must be re-litigated from the beginning, in fairness to him, to give him at least a modicum of chance of success. It is not through the fault of Linga & Co that we needed to ask for a number of adjournments, and it was always done in the interests VA & that of Justice.
    I do not wish to comment about the counsel’s conduct on that day as that does not fall within my remit. However, you may read what I said about the counsel’s conduct in the Law Society Gazette.
    For the benefit of the readers I would like to add this postscript. My perseverance had its rewards in the end as VA’s case has eventually been brought to a successful conclusion and he has now been recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom.
    I feel Linga & Co and myself have been unfairly criticized in Neil Rose’s Article in Legal Futures
    Regards

    V P Lingajothy
    LLB Hons; MSc Criminal Justice
    ACIlex


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

18 July 2018

What do the whiplash reforms mean for children?

An element of the reforms contained in the Civil Liability Bill which seems to be flying mostly under the radar is the effect this will have on children.

Read More