- BY Sonia Lenegan
New guidance from the tribunal on witnesses giving evidence from abroad
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
The President of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has issued Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2024 on witnesses giving evidence from abroad, following new arrangements being agreed with HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. This has replaced the previous guidance on taking evidence from abroad, Presidential Guidance Note No 4 of 2022.
Where a person wants to rely on live oral evidence given by video from overseas, the person will need permission from the tribunal. The requirement for permission does not apply if the evidence is given in writing or if the person giving video evidence is located in the UK, Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories.
The guidance sets out the procedure to be followed, including checking whether the country has given permission for live video evidence to be taken from within its jurisdiction and what needs to be done when asking the tribunal for permission.
The guidance also explains how the tribunal will approach the prospect of delays where the FCDO has to contact an overseas embassy and whether or not the tribunal will delay proceedings in order to have the reply. The following factors will be considered:
- whether it is necessary for the witness to give oral evidence by reference to the disputed issues;
- whether the witness could address the disputed issues adequately by providing written answers to questions posed by the opposing party; and
- whether delay could be avoided altogether by the witness travelling to a third country where it is known there are no diplomatic objections to the giving of oral evidence.