Government proposal to fast-track immigration detention appeals risks ‘riding roughshod’ over rights

Plans to limit timeframe for appeals to 25 working days presents 'real risk' of unjust decisions leading to people being removed from UK unlawfully, warns Law Society

The Law Society said government plans to limit the timeframe to determine appeals from people in detention to 25 working days will not leave enough time for solicitors to effectively represent their clients (AFP/Getty)

Government proposals to fast-track appeals by immigration detainees risk “riding roughshod” over people’s lives, lawyers have warned.

The Law Society said plans to limit the timeframe to determine appeals from people in detention to 25 working days will not leave enough time for solicitors to effectively represent their clients.

It said the proposals presented a “real risk” of unjust decisions leading to people being removed from the UK unlawfully.

The government has said specific rules in relation to immigration detention are needed to guarantee a maximum timeframe for determining appeals, and is currently consulting on imposing the time restriction of 25 days.

But the Law Society said it was unaware of any research or evidence to support the view the proposed timescale gives appellants sufficient time to properly prepare cases.

To prepare an appeal, legal representatives must obtain legal aid, instruct experts, have adequate time to take instructions from detainees, prepare statements and pursue adequate disclosure from the Home Office.

Government figures show four in 10 deportation appeals are successful. More than half (56 per cent) of appeals on human rights grounds succeed, as do 66 per cent of deprivation of citizenship appeals and 41 per cent of asylum/protection appeals.

Christina Blacklaws, president of the organisation, said: “If people in immigration detention are forced to make appeals through a fast-track system there is a real risk of unjust decisions leading to people being removed from the UK unlawfully.

“Asylum and immigration claims may be complex and gathering evidence can take time. If the claimant is detained there are also significant barriers to consulting a solicitor.

“Accelerating the appeals process when there are so many unreliable initial decisions by the Home Office risks riding roughshod over people’s rights.”

Ms Blacklaws said the Windrush crisis had showed how “devastating” an incorrect Home Office decision can be, adding: “When the stakes for appellants are so high, the UK must maintain the highest standard of fairness and make every effort to ensure just decisions.”

Celia Clarke, director of Bail for Immigration Detainees (Bid), told The Independent there was “no justification” for cases being heard for people in detention to be sped up.

“Detention is damaging to people’s mental and physical health, and being in detention already places appellants at a disadvantage,” she said.

“Previous fast-track systems were found to be unlawful, despite which, yet again we are presented with proposals that sacrifice fairness and justice on the altar of so-called efficiency.

“Asylum and immigration cases are complex and the outcomes are life-changing. Already more than half of appeals are overturned on appeal. The current tribunal procedure rules already enable cases to be dealt with expeditiously where possible and appropriate.

“People need access to lawyers, need time to prepare, and the judiciary and courts’ system need to be well-resourced to deal effectively with the hugely important cases with which they deal.”

A government spokesperson said: “The revised timeframe is significantly longer than under previous rules, with judges retaining the power to decide whether a case should be expedited among further safeguards to ensure a fair process.

“But it is right that foreign nationals with no grounds to remain should be removed as quickly as possible – both to prevent exploitation of our justice system, and to ensure appellants spend as little time in detention as possible.”