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

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Jersey litigation lead appointed to global STEP Council

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

Firm invests in future talent with new training cohort

NEWS
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
back-to-top-scroll