R (on the application of TN (Vietnam)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another  UKSC 41
The Detained Fast Track Procedure system was a system that was primarily formed to process the claims on the ground of Asylum. There was a discrepancy regarding the refusal of the claims but such an issue was no longer challenged. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal was previously functional but the Fast-Track Procedure Rules 2003 replaced the same in 2005. This was further replaced by the FTR, 2014. In a particular case of R v. First Tier Tribunal case in 2015, these rules under FTR, 2014 was held ultra vires since they were held unfair and did not provide justice in the face of extreme risks. This case therefore dates back to 2005 regarding the Fast-Track Rules of 2005.
This case concerns a Vietnamese national who had claimed asylum from UK in the year 2003. This continued on many occasions until she was finally removed to Vietnam in the year 2012. In 2014, she returned to the United Kingdom again and claimed Asylum again from scratch. Along with the fresh claims of Asylum, she further claimed that was a victim of sexual abuse and trafficking but this claim regarding Asylum was dismissed by the court in 14th August, 2014 and after a week, her appeal under the FTR, 2005 was also dismissed by the First Tier Tribunal. It was largely because TN had failed to provide substantial evidence supporting her claim and sufficient anomalies were found in her account which led to the dismissal. Therefore, TN proceeds to seek an order that would quash this decision. Since, at the very beginning the FTR, 2005 was held ultra vires, it could be assumed that all the appeals made under the FTR was null, but that wasn’t the case. It was required by the affected persons to actual provide evidence as to procedural unfairness and injustice had evidently taken place but with regards to TN’s case, there were no such discrepancies found. Therefore, the Court of Appeal agreed to the claim and finally dismissed the appeal. Further, TN appealed the same before the Supreme Court.
The background of the issue stemmed from the legal consequence of a ruling that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal was held ultra vires by the court therefore TN’s appeal primarily raised three issues:
Firstly, Whether the decisions on appeals made by individuals would automatically stand null under FTR, 2005.
Secondly, what are the grounds that the court undertakes such a s decision in order to quash the applications or set aside decisions made through the appeals under FTR, 2005?
Thirdly, Did TN’s case have sufficient unfairness?
Tn’s appeal and submission was considered by Lady Arden after sufficient speculation dismisses her appeal as the determination made by the FTT was automatically null. It was held that the system designed was inherently and structurally unfair but did not necessarily imply that every individual’s case was determined unfairly. Lady Arden agreed by the stance taken by Lord Sales and ultimately rejected the submission purely because TN’s case was ‘Inextricably linked’ to the structural unfairness. She did uphold and cited instances of judicial bias which would automatically lead to a null decision citing Pathan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 41;  1 WLR 4506. It was largely on TN to substantiate her claims and provide evidences of unfairness which she failed to show that ultimately affected her conduct. The principle of fairness must be ensured after an overall scrutiny. Lady Arden still takes the trafficking claim under consideration. In compliance with the jurisdictional reason undertaken by Singh LJ’s reason, Lord Sales agrees and upholds the “conceptual Distinction” between ultra vires and scrutiny of individual cases. Therefore, Lady Arden also held there was no error in law on the whole.
TN’s Appeal was unanimously dismissed by the Supreme Court where Lady Arden provides the first judgment on the issue, followed by a concurrent judgment of Lord Sales and Lord Lloyd’s compliance with Lord Sales argument and lastly Lord Briggs and Lord Stephen’s agreement on the stance of both the judgments has finally led to the decision.