IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 1999
THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES TRIBUNAL
CHARGE NO: IMS/2002/001/DIS
Between:
THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONER
Prosecutor
and
JACOB SIGODO MABONDE MOYO
Person charged
Before:
His Honour Judge Cripps
Dr Susan Rowlands
Dr Alan Montgomery CMG
Sitting at the Immigration Services Tribunal,
48/49 Chancery lane
London WC2A 1JR
Sent to parties: August 2002
DECISION and REASONS [RULE 24]
Background
By letter dated 13th June 2001, Jacob Sigodo Mabonde Moyo, trading as J S M Consultancy Services (JSMCS), the person charged, was notified that the Immigration Services Commissioner, the prosecutor, had approved him for registration.
By letter dated 10th April 2002, the prosecutor laid a disciplinary charge against the person charged. The charge is that Jacob Sigodo Mabonde Moyo made a false statement on his application for registration documents.
The prosecutor applied for an interim direction under paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 5 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 prohibiting the person charged and his practice from providing immigration advice and/or services pending the hearing of the charge.
I heard this application for an interim direction on Thursday 25th April 2002 at St Albans Crown Court.
David Barr, of Counsel, appeared for the prosecutor. The person charged appeared in person.
I granted the application. I directed that Jacob Sigodo Mabonde Moyo and any person employed by him or working under his supervision be prohibited from providing immigration advice or immigration services from 25th April 2002, until the conclusion of the charge proceedings or further direction.
The hearing of the disciplinary charge.
This took place at 48/49 Chancery Lane on Thursday 15th August 2002.
David Barr, of Counsel, appeared for the prosecutor. Revantha Amarasinha, solicitor, appeared for the person charged. The person charged was present.
Mr Amarasinha told the tribunal that the person charged had been refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom. He told us that the person charged cannot lawfully work in the United Kingdom but he believed that he was entitled to work when he signed the declaration.
We adjourned for a short time so that Mr Amarasinha could take further instructions.
When the tribunal re-assembled, Mr Amarasinha told us that his client admitted the charge as laid and breach of clause 50 a), d) and e) of the Code of Standards. He and his client accepted that the answer “No” to the question “are you subject to any restrictions on your residence in or permission to work in the United Kingdom?” was false and the declaration on page 5 verifying the above answer was incorrect.
In the light of the admission we found the charge proved.
We then rehearsed section 89 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 [flag 18 pages 10 and 11 of 16] and reminded ourselves and the parties present of the available directions.
The prosecutor asked for a direction under section 89(8)(c).
We then asked Mr Amarasinha to mitigate for his client.
Mr Amarasinha reminded us that the bundle before us included statements by Saiqa Khan [flag 12] and Christopher Salmon [flag 13], which the person charged had received very recently. He said that those statements alleged activity by or on behalf of his client after the making of the interim direction on 25th April and neither he nor his client had had any proper opportunity to investigate those allegations. He asked for an adjournment to allow his client to investigate those matters. The prosecutor said that he wanted those allegations to be before the tribunal as they were or may be relevant when considering any direction. He did not oppose the application for adjournment.
We said that we wished to hear from Mr Moyo before deciding on the application to adjourn.
We told the parties that we proposed to continue the hearing, that we would put out of our minds the allegations that the person charged had caused or allowed others to provide immigration advice and/or services since the prohibition on 25th April.
Mr Moyo entered the witness box. He was born on 2nd November 1942. He was brought up in Rhodesia. He met and came to know Robert Mugabe. He was detained in Rhodesia. He came to the United Kingdom in 1971. He arrived on a student visa. He was granted indefinite leave to remain after his marriage to a woman who was resident in the United Kingdom. He studied at LSE. He worked for central government, local government and the CRE. In 1982, Robert Mugabe asked him to return to Zimbabwe. He returned with his family. He worked in the Ministry of Land. He fell out with the government. He was moved to the Ministry of Agriculture in 1984. He then went to the Ministry of Justice. He became master of the High Court. He was responsible for deceased persons’ assets and the assets of companies in liquidation. He was frequently asked to approve sales to friends of the government at an undervalue but refused to agree to such action. Matters came to a head when he was asked to appoint a South African citizen liquidator of a company with valuable assets. He discovered that the person did not have a Zimbabwean work permit and therefore refused to appoint him. This led to threatening calls to his home. His wife travelled to England in July 1998 for a wedding. In August 1998, he was visited by employees of the C.I.O who told him that he was to be killed but those in senior positions were divided as to when. He then fled to England with his children, arriving on 26th August 1998. He told animmigration officer on his arrival here that he was coming for a family wedding and was to stay for a month. He did this, as he had not decided whether to stay in the United Kingdom or to travel to Sweden or Canada and remain there. In the event, he decided to stay in England with his family. He needed an income and so he began giving immigration advice to others. He charged those others, as he needed money to support himself and his family.
He explained his application to the Home Office for renewal of indefinite leave to remain and permission to work. It was refused in January 2002.
He told us of the assistance he had received in dealing with the Home office from Jim Dowd MP, from Lord Healey and of his letter to Barbara Roche, when she was Minister of State at the Home Office.
He told us that the letter from Jim Dowd, [flag 15 2nd page] led him to believe that he could continue to provide immigration advice and services and that, maybe, the Home Office had agreed that he should work. He told us that his application to the prosecutor was completed in a hurry, that he had lost the Jim Dowd letter and was relying on memory and he had not deliberately lied when making the declaration that was, in fact, false.
He told us that he had been loyal to the interim direction and had not worked since 25th April.
We then considered the application to adjourn.
We retired and discussed the matter.
We returned. We told the parties that we had taken into account Mr Moyo’s evidence that he had been loyal to my interim direction, but that our provisional view was that the gravity of the charge which we had found proved was so serious that permanent prohibition seemed appropriate.
We refused the application to adjourn.
We asked Mr Amarasinha what else he wished to say.
Mr Amarasinha summarised his client’s position. Mr Moyo had made an innocent mistake. He had had a nagging doubt about his true position and should have checked his position. He accepted the prosecutor’s case. His failure to do so earlier was because he had not had the benefit of legal advice on his position. He had led an impeccable life. He is a man of high moral standing. He clearly regrets his position. He has children to support. A lesser penalty would be appropriate. He will learn from this experience and will not repeat what occurred.
Decision.
We direct that Jacob Sigido Mabonde Moyo be prohibited from providing immigration advice and/or immigration services indefinitely.
Reasons
The person charged holds himself out as expert in immigration matters including applications for leave to enter or remain and appeals against refusals of leave to enter and remain [flag 3 page 3]. The question on the competence statement [flag 4 page 4] relating to restrictions on residence and permission to work is clear and easily understood. The answer was and is false. The declaration on the document [flag 4 page 5] makes it clear that the preceding statements are important and the answers to them must be true and accurate.
We cannot accept the person charged’s explanation as to how he came to give the false answer and then falsely declare it to be true. The person charged knew that he had been given permission to remain for 6 months when he arrived in the UK in August 1998. He knew this permission was on the express terms that he did not work. He knew that he had applied for leave to remain and that his application had not been determined. He knew that he had no right to reside in the UK and no right to work until granted leave to remain. Any person in the person charged’s position must have known that the answer given was false. Having considered and discussed the evidence before us, we are sure that he did know his answer was false and we are sure that he deliberately made and signed the false declaration.
A person who makes such a false declaration on his application to obtain registration is wholly unsuitable for registration as a person providing immigration advice or immigration services under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The offence is so serious that there must be a direction under section 89(8)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
His Honour Judge Seddon Cripps
Dated: 20th August 2002.