Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2010 UKUT 160 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	JR 3066 2009
Appellant:	R(RB)
Respondent:	First Tier Tribunal (Review)
Judge/Commissioner:	Three-Judge Panel / Tribunal of Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	28/05/2010
Date Added:	29/06/2010
Main Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:	Mental health
Secondary Subcategory:	All
Notes:	Reported as [2010] AACR 41 Tribunal practice – review – whether original decision clearly wrong The First-tier Tribunal directed a deferred conditional discharge of a restricted patient, the conditions including ones that the patient must reside in a named care home and must not leave its grounds except when supervised. The Secretary of State for Justice applied for permission to appeal on the ground that the conditions were unlawful. A judge of the First-tier Tribunal reviewed the decision and set it aside, referring the case to another panel. The patient applied for a review of the review decision or, alternatively, permission to appeal. The judge purported to review the review decision but to take no action in respect of it and refused permission to appeal. A renewed application for permission was refused by a judge of the Upper Tribunal on the ground that there was no right of appeal against a review decision. On reconsideration, the Chamber President treated the application as an application for permission to apply for judicial review of the last decision of the judge of the First-tier Tribunal and granted permission. Held, by a three-judge panel, quashing the last decision of the judge of the First-tier Tribunal, setting aside the decision to set aside the original decision and granting the Secretary of State permission to appeal against the original decision, that: 1. the power to review a decision should be exercised only where the original decision was clearly wrong in law (paragraph 24); 2. where the First-tier Tribunal re-decides a case following a review, its composition must be the same as was required for the original decision, although the particular judge and members may be different, and so there was no error in the judge referring the case to a different panel (paragraph 29); 3. the judge had erred in concluding that the original decision was clearly erroneous in point of law, having failed to focus upon the need to avoid usurping the Upper Tribunal’s function of determining appeals on contentious points of law (paragraph 50).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2010] AACR 41 bv.doc