The National & International Law Advisory Co v Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner

Between:

Appellant

THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONER

Before: David Hunter QC

Sitting at 48/49 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JR

This case is an appeal by National and International Law Advisory & Co (“the Appellant”) against a decision of the Immigration Services Commissioner (“the Respondent”) to refuse to register the appellant as qualified to provide immigration advice or immigration services.

By virtue of Section 84 (1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the Act”) no person may provide immigration advice or immigration services unless he is a qualified person. By virtue of Section 84 (2) of the Act a person is a qualified person if he is registered with the Immigration Services Commissioner.

The Appellant applied to the Respondent for registration on 20^th April 2001.

The Respondent is directed by Section 83 (5) of the Act to exercise his functions so as to secure, so far as reasonably practicable, that those who provide immigration advice or immigration services are, inter alia, fit and competent to do so.

By letter dated 3^rd October 2001 the Respondent refused the Appellant’s application on the ground that he could not be satisfied that the Appellant was competent and fit to provide immigration advice or immigration services.

By virtue of Section 87 of the Act any person aggrieved by a relevant decision of the Respondent may appeal to the Immigration Services Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) against the decision.

In exercise of that right, the Appellant appealed against the aforesaid decision of the Respondent (the refusal to register the Appellant) on 24^th October 2001.

The Tribunal (David Hunter QC as legally qualified member, and Ms Orla Conway and Dr Alan Montgomery as members) sat on Friday 8^th March 2002 at 48/49 Chancery Lane, London, to hear and determine this appeal.

The Appellant was represented by Mr Kishore, of Counsel, instructed by Mr Paynter of Kings, Solicitors, and the Respondent was represented by Mr Waite, of Counsel, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor.

The Tribunal heard evidence from Max Kingsley and Tim Paynter on behalf of the Appellant, and from Alistair Nesbitt, Sonu Kapoor and Christine Nixon on behalf of the Respondent. The Tribunal noted and considered all those documents placed before it by the Appellant and the Respondent, and heard and considered also the careful and comprehensive closing submissions of Counsel.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the members of the Tribunal retired to consider their determination. In doing so, the Tribunal reminded itself that in this Appeal the burden of proving the facts on which he relied rested upon the Appellant, by virtue of Rule 22 (2) of the Immigration Services Tribunal Rules 2000.

Having due regard to all of the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal dismisses this Appeal.

At this stage of the giving of its reasons for its determination, the Tribunal considers it significant to note that, whilst formally and in name this is the Appeal of National and International Law Advisory & Co, in practice and in reality it is the Appeal of Max Kingsley (“Mr Kingsley”). The Tribunal finds that Mr Kingsley and National and International Law Advisory & Co were and are essentially one and the same, and that all of the significant business and affairs of the Appellant were and are conducted and supervised by Mr Kingsley.

In his letter of 3^rd October 2001 refusing registration the Respondent indicated that in coming to his decision he had taken four matters into account.

These matters were, in summary:

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent was validly entitled to take each of these matters into account as indicating, cumulatively, that Mr Kingsley, and therefore the Appellant, is not fit or competent to provide immigration advice or immigration services.

The Tribunal deals with the four matters seriatim.

Mr Kingsley protested to the Tribunal his innocence of the allegations made against him to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The Tribunal found his protestation unconvincing, and noted his failure to appeal against the findings of that Tribunal, and the absence of any convincing reason for that failure. The Tribunal recognises that the findings related to matters which occurred in 1987 and 1988, but finds it of considerable significance that a person who purports now to be a fit and competent person to provide immigration advice and services, which proper provision necessarily entails, inter alia, the highest standards of honesty and integrity, should have made absolutely no effort of any substance to clear his name of very grave findings of dishonesty made in 1996.

The Tribunal has had due regard to the affidavit of Ms Vasilieva, and takes this opportunity to record its finding that the inexcusably late submission (on the late afternoon of Thursday 7^th March 2002, the day preceding the day of the hearing of this Appeal) of a bundle of documents, including the said affidavit, submitted on behalf of the Appellant, has diminished the weight which the Tribunal might otherwise have been inclined to attach to the persuasive qualities of those documents. For the reference of future litigants, the Tribunal does consider adherence to its time limits to be a matter of considerable importance.

© The Tribunal regards the judgment of Barnet County Court as evidence which damns the protestations of competence made by and on behalf of Mr Kingsley. Again, Mr Kingsley protested that there was no valid foundation of this judgment. He alleged that he had set in train an appeal, and evidence in this regard was given on his behalf.

Again, the Tribunal finds that there is not a shred of convincing evidence that any appeal of merit has been made or is likely to be made. The Tribunal accepts the contemporaneous record of the judgment made by Ms Kapoor, as evidence of a recent and blatant lack of competence and integrity on the part of Mr Kingsley.

The Tribunal does not feel obliged to decide whether, as was submitted on behalf of the Respondent, any one of these four matters was sufficient in itself to justify the Respondent’s decision to refuse to register the Appellant. The Tribunal found the evidence adduced on behalf of the Respondent in respect of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal findings, the appearances of the Appellant’s advertisements in the Solicitors Section of Thomson’s Directories, the Barnet County Court judgment, and the “paper Professorship” to be entirely unconvincing. The Tribunal found the evidence of Mr Kingsley, in every aspect in which his credibility was in question, entirely unconvincing. The Tribunal find therefore that, cumulatively, the four matters suffice to validate the Respondent’s decision not to register the Appellant, and that the Appellant has failed entirely to prove to the Tribunal that National and International Law Advisory & Co is fit and competent to provide immigration advice and immigration services.

Finally, since the matter was canvassed before it, the Tribunal wishes to record its view that the Appellant’s dealings with Ms Lukasova constituted the provision of immigration advice and services, and that the Appellant continued to provide such services after the decision of Judge Seddon Cripps to refuse to suspend the effect of the Respondent’s decision to refuse to register the Appellant. Although the Tribunal does not find it necessary to decide whether this disregard by the Appellant of the ruling of Judge Seddon Cripps should play any part in the Tribunal’s determination of the instant appeal, the Tribunal wishes to register its strong disapproval of this disregard, and, for the benefit of future litigants, to stress the importance of adherence to such rulings.

As stated above, and for the reasons given, this Appeal is dismissed.

David Hunter QC