header-logo header-logo

‘Staggering’ asylum claim delays

29 August 2023
Issue: 8038 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail
Thousands of asylum seekers are mired in a claims process beset by delays, backlogs and mistakes, according to the latest Home Office statistics.

The quarterly statistics, published last week, show an increase in the number of people waiting longer than six months for an initial decision on their asylum claim, from 89,231 in June 2022 to 139,691 in June 2023.

The Home Office was dealing with 134,046 cases—a record high. This figure, taking dependants into account, corresponded to a total of 174,457 people waiting for an initial decision on their asylum claim—a number described as ‘staggering’ by Richard Atkinson, Law Society deputy vice president.

Atkinson said: ‘These figures show the growing backlog is due to inefficiency and under resourcing of the asylum system.

‘The best way to bring down the backlog and reduce the cost to the taxpayer is to properly resource and train Home Office caseworkers to ensure sufficient and good quality decision-making.’

The statistics show 71% of applications were recognised as refugees at initial decision. Of those decisions appealed, 53% were overturned.

The figures also show the number of decisions withdrawn by the Home Office has more than doubled; a withdrawn case means the Home Office will no longer consider it and a claimant will not receive a decision, either of refugee status or a refusal. The Home Office withdrew 11,396 out of 24,000 decisions in the first six months of 2023. In comparison, there were 3,366 withdrawal decisions in the last six months of 2022.

Atkinson said: ‘The government updated its guidance to expand the circumstances in which a claim will be considered withdrawn.

‘It is not yet clear whether the increase in withdrawals is a result of the policy change and crucially, whether those affected are aware of these changes and the impact they can have on their claim being withdrawn.’

The Home Office maintains it will clear the backlog by the end of 2023, fulfilling a government commitment. The Illegal Migration Act 2023, which passed into law in July, creates a duty to remove persons arriving by an unauthorised route, regardless of any asylum claim.

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