header-logo header-logo

Extra judges drafted for Rwanda appeals

17 January 2024
Issue: 8055 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail
Extra First-tier tribunal judges will be recruited, trained and ready to start hearing Illegal Migration Act appeals ‘from this summer’, according to Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor

MPs were this week debating the controversial Bill, under which persons arriving via what the Bill terms ‘illegal’ means, such as a small boat, will be detained and removed to their home country or to Rwanda for claims processing.

In a written statement issued one hour before the debate began, Chalk clarified that additional First-tier tribunal judges would be deployed to the Upper Tribunal to hear the appeals.

‘The judiciary have identified relevant judges, which could provide over 5,000 additional sitting days,’ Chalk said.

‘The decision on whether to deploy additional judges temporarily to the Upper Tribunal, including when they sit and the courtrooms they use, is for the independent judiciary and will be taken by the relevant leadership judges at the time and in the interests of justice. In addition, the Lord Chancellor has asked the Judicial Appointments Commission to recruit more judges to the First-tier and Upper Tribunal.

‘The recruitment will conclude in the next few months and new judges will be appointed, trained, and start sitting from this summer.’

He said the Ministry of Justice had made 25 hearing rooms available for the appeals within the existing Immigration and Asylum Chamber in London, with remote hearing technology installed. More than 100 extra staff have been recruited and are currently in training.

Under the Bill, individuals issued with a third country removal notice have eight days to make their claim. The Home Secretary then has four days to decide whether the claim should succeed, not succeed or be certified as clearly unfounded.

If certified unfounded, there is no automatic right of appeal, but the individual has seven working days to apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal. The Upper Tribunal has seven working days to decide. No further appeal is available.

If rejected but not certified unfounded, the individual has seven working days to give notice of appeal to the Upper Tribunal, which then has 23 working days to make its decision. 
Issue: 8055 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
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
back-to-top-scroll