header-logo header-logo

Home Office immigration plans ‘confused’, say Bar Council & Law Society

12 May 2021
Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Judicial review
printer mail-detail
The Bar Council has slammed radical Home Office proposals to reform immigration law as based on ‘thin or non-existent’ evidence.

The government consultation on its New Plan for Immigration includes proposals for a ‘one-stop process’ for immigration claims with ‘all protection-related issues’ to be presented at the start of the process, an expedited claims and appeals process, and a pre-approved panel of experts.

Responding to the consultation last week, the Bar Council said the time allowed for responses was ‘seriously inadequate’, and the proposals for expediting claims and appeals were ‘confused’, lacked detail, and raised concerns about the potential risk of unlawfulness. 

The proposal for judges to decide refused claims, with no right of appeal, lacked detail, but assuming that it relates to challenges which are currently brought as judicial reviews, then there were already short limitation periods for judicial review, the Bar Council pointed out. It described the use of pre-approved experts as ‘unprincipled and deeply inimical to a fair appeals process’. It said the suggestion that a party acting in an appeal against a Home Office decision before an independent judge could be constrained to instruct a pre-approved expert ‘fundamentally undermines the right to a fair hearing’.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said the plans ‘pose a serious threat to the rule of law as well as undermining access to justice and making a mockery of British fair play.

‘The proposals individually and collectively lack credibility because they are not supported by evidence, detail and perhaps―most damningly―they muddle immigration, asylum and nationality laws.’

She highlighted that the 1951 Convention on Refugees recognises that those fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means of travel and should not be penalised for this.

‘Penalising asylum-seekers who reach our shores by so-called irregular routes, such as by boat, would overturn this principle and risk breaching international law by creating a two-tier asylum system. The government appears not to appreciate the severity of this risk.’

Boyce said: ‘The proposals seek to push asylum-seekers who reach the UK by irregular routes into destitution or homelessness as a way of coercing them to leave the country.’

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