PN (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The renewed applications for permission to appeal in these three appeals by nationals of Zimbabwe were adjourned by the Vice President in the cases of SM (Zimbabwe) and BC (Zimbabwe) and by myself in the case of PN (Zimbabwe) until after the Supreme Court had given judgment in the case of RT (Zimbabwe)[2012] UKSC 38. The applicants were ordered to file and serve supplementary skeleton arguments and they have done so. The respondent has not given a substantive response in the cases of BC and SN. The respondent’s response in the case of PN has been to offer to remit the matter for a fresh hearing before the Tribunal, but that offer has not been accepted because the applicant is contending that the appeal ought to be allowed outright.

In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in RT (Zimbabwe) and in the light of the Court of Appeal’s decision in JG (Zimbabwe) [2011] EWCA Civ 1704quashing the Upper Tribunal’s country guidance in what was called EM (Zimbabwe) [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC), I am satisfied that each of these three appellants has a real prospect of succeeding in their appeal. While none of the cases raises an important point of principle or practice, each turns on its own particular facts, I am satisfied that there is a compelling reason in each case for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal; that is to say, the arguably erroneous approach of the Upper Tribunal in principle to the issues that were raised and have now been determined by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in RT and JG respectively.

So far as matters of procedure are concerned, I give Mr Mahmood permission to file and serve amended grounds in each case if so advised. It might be more convenient to treat the supplementary skeleton argument as the revised grounds, but I leave that to those representing the appellants.

The only other matter to mention is the question of listing. These are merely some of the outstanding applications for permission to appeal and/or appeals by Zimbabwean nationals. I understand from Mr Mahmood that a number of other cases are listed for a two-day hearing over 21 and 22 January. Both he and his instructing solicitor are involved in those cases, and it seems sensible that consideration should be given as to whether these three appeals should be linked with those cases. Mr Mahmood is confident that the two-day time estimate would not be exceeded and that seems to be sensible to me because once the over-arching legal arguments have been put, they need to be put only once. It is simply a question of fitting the individual facts of these cases into those legal principles, so one would have thought that adding in the further cases would not materially extend the time for the hearing. It would certainly be sensible if it can be achieved to deal with as many of the outstanding cases at once as possible.

So with those observations I grant these renewed applications for permission to appeal.