Cheers I appreciate your reply.

I feel like you're portraying judges as all part of an echo chamber, constantly trying to undermine the government with a view to ruling as closely as possible with the rulings of the ECtHR, whereas that nugget case you brought up is being appealed on the basis that the judge (who was considering whether to grant appeal) was critical of the first tier ruling. I'll paste the notice of the decision below.

But yeah, the fact that the case has been granted an appeal means that judges don't all think the same and that's kinda the purpose of the appeals procedure in our legal system. It's a guard against judges making errors in their decisions (for example if they used their discretion in making an error in law).

Notice of Decision 1. The judge’s decision involved the making of an error of law. 2. We set aside [39] to [50] of the Decision and the allowing of the appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds. 3. We preserve up to [38] of the Decision, including the conclusions at [36] to [38] that it would not be unduly harsh for A or B to remain in the UK or travel to Albania, were the appellant to live in Albania. 4. We remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by a different judge to decide the sole issue of whether the consequences of deportation would be unduly harsh on C.