header-logo header-logo

Asylum tribunals told to work twice as fast

30 April 2025
Issue: 8114 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail
Home Office plans to process asylum seekers’ appeals within 24 weeks may not be achievable, the Law Society has warned.

Home Office plans to process asylum seekers’ appeals within 24 weeks may not be achievable, the Law Society has warned.

Immigration and asylum tribunals will be set a 24-week target to decide appeals brought by asylum seekers in hotels or receiving accommodation support or who are foreign offenders. Government statistics show appeals currently take about 50 weeks.

Other measures announced this week include a crackdown on unscrupulous advisers—the Home Office will amend the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to give the Immigration Advice Authority powers to fine unregistered immigration advisers up to £15,000.

Further amendment will block from refugee status any foreign national convicted of a crime that qualifies them for the sex offenders register. Home Office case workers will also be given artificial intelligence (AI) tools to speed up the asylum decision-making process.

Law Society president Richard Atkinson welcomed the proposed crackdown on unregulated advisers.

However, he warned the 24-week target, while ‘laudable in theory’, may not be ‘workable in practice as the justice system is already struggling to cope with current levels of demand’.

Atkinson said: ‘There is a long wait for appeals to be processed due to the sheer volume of cases going through the system.

‘Efforts to clear the legacy backlog of asylum claims have led to more initial claims being refused, resulting in the number of appeals increasing even further.’ On the use of AI, he called for safeguards to ensure any results produced by AI are accurate.

Laura Smith, co-head of legal, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said: ‘People fleeing danger deserve a fair hearing, not blanket exclusions.

‘Singling out sex offenders for automatic exclusion—regardless of the seriousness of the offence or risk posed—goes against the core principles of the Refugee Convention. This isn’t about safety, it’s about headlines.’

Issue: 8114 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll