The appeal raises the following issues:
A. Does a decision under paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules as to whether a person can reasonably be expected to stay in part of their country of origin import a value judgment including consideration of that person’s criminal conduct in the UK?
B. If the answer to A is No, did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in holding that A could not reasonably be expected to stay in a different part of Jamaica?
C. Did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in her assessment of section s117C(4)(b)-(c) of the NIAA 2002 and Para. 399A(b)-(c) of the Immigration Rules in holding that A is socially and culturally integrated in the UK and there would be very significant obstacles to his integration in Jamaica.
D. Did FTT Judge Kamara err in law in embarking on a freestanding assessment of Article 8, applying the wrong test and failing to give sufficient weight to the public interest in A’s deportation.

When considering what costs to award following an appeal before the Competition Appeal Tribunal from an infringement decision of the Competition and Markets Authority, is there a starting point and if so, what is it? In particular, was the Court of Appeal correct to decide that there is a starting point that no order for costs should be made against a regulator if it has been unsuccessful, except for a good reason, or is the starting point instead that an order for costs should be made against the regulator where it is unsuccessful?

(1) Whether the term "proceedings" should be confined to court proceedings in the context of considering reductions to defendants’ sentences when they plead guilty to a crime at an early stage.

                (2) Whether such reductions to sentences may be reduced where the defendant is caught "red handed".

Are the voter identification ("ID") pilot schemes that were implemented in the May 2019 local government elections unlawful?

(1) Whether the UK tax treatment of "manufactured overseas dividends" constituted a restriction of the free movement of capital, contrary to Article 63 TFEU. 
                (2) If so, whether this restriction was justified under EU law. 
                (3) If there was a restriction that could not be justified, what is the appropriate remedy.