The Upper Tribunal has considered the use of deception, fraud and false evidence in 12 judicial review claims, purportedly brought by 27 different applicants. The claims each related to the refusal of visitor visa applications from individuals from Pakistan. None of the applicants nor their sponsors in the UK, it turned out, were aware proceedings had been brought in their name.
Background
An undisputed fact in the proceedings is that between March 2024 and February 2025 nine people had died in the UK and genuine death certificates issued. Between them, these certificates were the foundation for each applicant seeking entry clearance to the UK purportedly to visit family members at a time of bereavement. In each case, there had been a refusal leading to a public law challenge.
Since 25 June 2013, a refusal of a visitor visa does not enjoy a right of appeal unless it constitutes a refusal of a human rights claim, so the normal course of challenge is by way of judicial review. In the 12 cases linked together for this hearing, the parties had either reached settlement by consent or were awaiting or had received permission decisions from the Tribunal.
It appears that the Upper Tribunal initially became suspicious having received strikingly similar communications in relation to two of the 12 cases. In those two cases there had been communication requesting expedited hearings because the applicants had sustained ‘severe burns’ following a ‘gas explosion’. Both expedition applications were accompanied by letters supposedly issued by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The Upper Tribunal was concerned the letters were not genuine and linked the cases together for a hearing to consider possible deception.
A further 10 cases were then joined, the matter having been further investigated by the respondent, who identified ongoing or recent cases raising concerns regarding possible fraudulent or deceptive evidence in similar circumstances before the Upper Tribunal.
The cases came before the tribunal which considered whether there had been fraud and deception and what this meant for the various proceedings before it, including cases which had already seemingly settled by consent.
What did the court find?
The court found extensive fraud in all cases likely orchestrated by the company ‘Globe Path’. Nearly every document that had been relied upon in the applications was either not genuine or was genuine but had been stolen as part of an identity theft. Astoundingly, none of the named applicants had been aware that public law proceedings were being brought in their name and sponsors were unaware their details had been used in the visa applications before the court. A number of findings were made.
First, the court found that every sponsor (except for one) is, or probably is, the victim of identity theft with their identity and personal documents having been used by others to secure the benefit of entry clearance as a visitor. Some had managed to be contacted by the court and confirmed they did not know and bore no relation to the applicants in question. It was likely their genuine documents were being rapidly recycled to be used in other visa applications without their knowledge.
Second, in every case the email address provided for the applicant which had also been used for communication with the tribunal was under the control of someone else. Applicants had no idea someone was communicating with the court on their behalf let alone that there were ongoing proceedings in place.
Third, the medical letters were categorically not genuine. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital confirmed this.
Fourth, in some of the cases the same Lloyds bank payment card had been used. Payments were made from the UK, meaning someone in the UK was engaged in facilitating the fraudulent process. It also added weight to there being fraud in the first place as the applicants were otherwise unlinked to each other and there was no reason the same payment card would have been used for the different applications.
Fifth, there were numerous recurring anomalies across all the applications. For example, the use of a comma in place of an apostrophe and the same spelling mistakes which made it likely they were part of the same fraud.
Sixth, the property valuation documents and title registers relied upon as supporting evidence in the underlying applications were demonstrably false.
Seventh, the applicants’ signatures were forged. None of the applicants had signed the court forms and proceedings were not within their knowledge.
A fraud machine
The tribunal identified five different models through which the fraud operated.
In the ‘sell on’ model, a genuine client provides UK-issued documents which are then sold on to someone else wishing to make an application. In the ‘genuine overseas document’ model, a client pays a significant fee for genuine foreign documents belonging to others that increase the likelihood of a visa application succeeding.
The ‘blended’ model involves a client paying for either genuine or false documents to be added to their own genuine documents to increase the chances of the visa application succeeding. Then there is the ‘entirely false’ documents model, which is self-explanatory. Finally, the ‘false personal circumstances’ model involves a client paying for assistance combining genuine documents belonging to another person whose personal circumstances support a successful application, combined with false documents produced by a third party.
In none of these models were the individuals whose documents were used aware of it. As matters had unfolded, the tribunal found a clear link to the company, Globe Path, which it concluded was likely the third party controlling the claims and had a clear financial incentive to do so – charging high fees for its services but also by receiving costs from public law proceedings it was generating.
Implications
Having found this deception, the tribunal then had to consider how to deal with the various applications before it.
It found that the proceedings were not enforceable. It is inherent in public law that a person who wants to review a decision of a public body can do so. However, that person must be aware of the proceedings and the proceedings should be within their knowledge. Given that the applicants were unaware of the claims, did not sign the court forms, and would have no desire to bring such claims, the court found the applications a nullity – proceedings were invalid from the outset – so there was no need for the court to go on to consider whether to strike out the claims. The consent orders, for example, were invalid.
There are also implications for those individuals and organisations who were the victims of identity fraud, as well as the family members of deceased individuals whose deaths had been used as part of the scheme. The tribunal identified the numerous individuals who remain unaware that proceedings have been brought in their names and that have been the victims of identity fraud, as well as the organisations who have had their details fraudulently used to create new documents. It is open to these individuals and organisations to report matters to the police.
Finally, the court gave some useful reminders about public law proceedings as well as the function of the tribunal. It reiterated the importance of the duty of candour, for example. In relation to consent orders the tribunal reminded that parties must be mindful when signing it and a tribunal must independently assess whether the order is appropriate and not simply approve without scrutiny. However, the court reiterated that it is not its function to investigate these documents and the first decision maker must interrogate documents and be alert to manipulation of them.
The judges also raised concern about how the Help with Fees scheme had been used in these cases and confirmed that a judge with concerns about fraud of this system may request clarification of an applicant’s financial status.
The scale and organisation of what the tribunal uncovered – fake hospitals letters, recycled bank cards, stolen identities and proceedings brought in the names of multiple people who had never heard of them – is quite remarkable.