Political correctness gone mad.
Blind immigration judge ‘had no idea of the law or his own powers’ says panel after 12 out of 13 appeals against his rulings succeed
- ‘Shambolic’ immigration judge Amir Ali Majid ruled against by senior panel
- He was found to have ‘very little idea’ of his powers or the content of the law
- One more case may be allowed after it was adjourned to determine legal point
By Sebastian Murphy-bates For Mailonline
Published: 02:06, 2 October 2017 | Updated: 07:12, 2 October 2017
The country’s second blind person to reach a judicial post wholly failed ‘to meet the standards that are demanded by the office of a judge’, according to a panel’s ruling.
The three-strong bench of senior judges ruled ‘shambolic’ 64-year-old immigration judge Amir Ali Majid had ‘very little idea of either his own (limited) powers or the content of the law that is in issue’.
Their ruling was the result of appeals relating to 13 cases heard recently by Judge Majid.
Judges from the immigration and asylum chamber’s upper tribunal allowed 12 appeals against the judge.
And one case could still be allowed after it was adjourned to determine a point of law.
All but one of the appeals allowed were remitted to be heard by a new judge at the immigration tribunal.
One of the appeals was allowed without being remitted for another hearing.
Judge Majid has been a part-time immigration judge for nearly two decades.
He is the the second ever only blind person to serve on the bench after John Wall became the first when he was appointed in 1991 and became a High Court judge.
The ruling recognised Judge Majid, who read law at London Guildhall University, was blind.
Though judges said it may be ‘wholly unreasonable to expect him to assimilate a complex matter in writing at short notice’, they added it could not be reasonably suggested blindness stops somebody learning or applying law or performing ‘crucial judicial tasks of hearing both sides and reaching and expressing a properly reasoned conclusion’.
They also said many of the cases rested on ‘notoriously complex’ immigration rules, adding Judge Majid had not given ‘the least reason to suppose that he is aware what the relevant requirements of the rules are’ in any of the cases appealed.
The tribunal found in one case the judge had a ‘misconception so basic that it is difficult to deal with briefly and coherently’.
He was found to have ignored core elements of the Refugee Convention, legal authorities ‘from 1996 on and the entire trend of state and judicial status determination’.
The ruling found in one case Judge Majid made a ‘really serious error’ by deciding he could allow an appeal ‘on the basis of his discretion or dismiss it on the basis of his impression of the economy’.
He faced serious allegations of ‘unreasonable and inappropriate conduct’ in one hearing and it was also alleged frequent misunderstandings angered him, complaints the tribunal found were well-founded.
‘We regard the body of his work that we have examined . . . as wholly failing to meet the standards that are demanded by the office of a judge and expected by the parties. ‘
As a result, every one of the decisions under appeal shows error in law, in most cases serious error, in most cases multiple serious errors.’
Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association chairman Adrien Berry said: ‘It is hard to see how he first passed the judicial exams and then why it has taken so long for his lack of knowledge to be exposed.
‘These are the sort of errors that first-year law students make. It is extremely rare for senior judges to make such a level of public criticism against another judge.’
A judiciary spokesman said the complaint against Judge Majid is a matter for president of the immigration and asylum chamber Judge Michael Clements.