In regard to this option, the factor of the 45.000 changes to the immigration ‘Rules’ (including not only of the Rules themselves, but of guidance information on the latter) AND the fact that the Tribunal has accepted that the point by point basis a UKVI refusal decision was made on, can in an oral hearing setting be not needing to be followed by the Home Office* in responding to an appeal (making the grounds on which the hearing takes place potentially largely or even completely unknown).
* Excerpt from an Appellant’s representative highlighting the issue (this example relates to the third time the Home Office/Respondent had in returning their ‘Bundle’ chosen to not reply to a single one of the appeal points which responded to the Home Office numerated decision and reasons, refusal of the application document):
‘…the Respondent had purposely chosen not to respond to the itemised Appeal document itself (one of the main reasons why a Hearing on the Papers was purposely avoided by the Home Office) and certainly not consider the supportive evidence provided by the Appellant (they/the Respondent also failed to do so in their Bundle). The appeal document itself of the Appellant was ignored by the Respondent, and the Tribunal was comfortable with this.
The logical implication of this is that the Home Office & Tribunal do not take appeal case, point by point, formal appeal documents [as the basis to hold the appeal hearings on] in to consideration any more when holding an appeal hearing …’ This makes for classic ‘Kangaroo Court’ conducting of judicial process; contemptuous to fairness/balance and the time-honoured structure of a case being heard on the basis of assertions and response to those specific assertions.
In ordinary circumstances the self-representation route would always, so long as one has a detailed knowledge of one’s case details, be preferable on a cost basis, and on a full grasp of detail basis, and certainly given the methods of implementation employed by the Home Office/UKVI on refusing genuine applicants that met all the main/clearly stated on application forms, criteria, and refused on demonstrably obscure points [many but far from all, relating to the 45,000 changes to the Rules) with a main emphasis on routinely/purposely ignoring supportive detail & grounds, as well as related, supportive compelling evidence.
However, in the age of the Hostile Environment, due to the revelations and compelling evidence of Hostile Environment related obscuring (and worse) of the operational level interconnections between the Tribunal and the Home Office, self-representation may in terms of likelihood of success give at best a 50/50 chance.
If the Home Office regards your case to reveal abuses of process and powers in how the UKVI/Home Office have treated you, then there is a strong probability that in numerous ways, they can at the appeal stage ensure that you have minimal chances of success.
This is amplified to an almost to actual 100% likelihood of no success if they regard you as having exposed such abuses of power and process effectively. At that point if you continue to self-represent your case and you highlight the political level aspects of human rights UK and international protections & laws, and processes abuse, particularly, for example, then the full extent of the interconnections at strategic level of the Home Office & Tribunal will emerge very clearly.
Conversely, many self-representation cases play a major part in turning ‘bright lights’ in to the workings, revealed strategies, methods and techniques of the Hostile Environment at operational, implementation level, which for political level action to counteract the Hostile Environment in Parliament, in the investigative news media, and alerting others, including those who may be going through the same abusive treatment.
These are considerations of great importance to victims of the Hostile Environment, as self-representation is unique as providing the basis for connecting with others in domains (politics, media, watchdog entities, etc.) where the Hostile Environment is viewed as cruel, unjust and unacceptable.
Legal representation routes, as well as being often unacceptably costly (and in many cases, the enforcement of effective, literal poverty is not accidentally caused by for example restrictions on the appellant not having been allowed to work, with consequent financial burden being doubled on the partner, etc.) – bills in the tens of thousands being not uncommon – in all but the rarest cases, do not consider or assist in regard to the factors above.
DO NOT FORGET: Self-Representation can take other legally permitted practical routes outside of the Hostile Environment supportive orientated Home Office – Tribunal, one. Some of these are explored at Other Representation routes – http://needtoknow-immigrationuk.com/other-representation-routes/