Stop blaming judges for the Home Office’s asylum mistakes

The UK government’s proposed new immigration and asylum appeals body is meant to deliver “fair and final” decisions. While the overall goal is welcome, there is little evidence that replacing our specialist immigration judges will address the real problems. Instead, it will compromise on safeguards that ensure decisions are lawful, fair and accurate.

Before ripping up the appeals process, the government should focus on the quality of decisions its own staff make. They should consider how those decisions affect the everyday lives of those in the process, as well as overall public confidence in the system.

Behind every immigration and asylum decision there is a person whose future, family and sense of security may depend on the outcome. Meanwhile, the Home Office’s own data found that barely half (52%) of decisions met the department’s quality standards in 2023/24. When in place, professional judges play an important role in identifying and correcting errors in decision-making. They provide an important mechanism for effective scrutiny and oversight. These figures point to deeper challenges within the system. The government must address these issues if it is serious about creating a fair and effective immigration process.

Creating a new appeals body without addressing these underlying issues simply ignores the root cause. It could also place further strain on the justice system, which is already tackling significant challenges. New appeals processes may increase litigation, put greater pressure on tribunals and create new recruitment and training challenges. We have seen these issues when other countries introduced similar arrangements. This is particularly the case when both systems need to run alongside each other for an extended period.

If the government does proceed with the new appeals body, its independence must be beyond question.

That means establishing a clear separation from the Home Office and ensuring senior appointments are made through independent processes. Robust safeguards should also be put in place to maintain a clear separation between the department and the appeals body.

As the government reforms the immigration system, it must invest in legal aid. The government has previously acknowledged how important early legal advice is in improving decision-making and reducing delays. Yet the Immigration and Asylum Bill contains no provisions to ensure people can access the support they need.

Our research shows that 63% of the population in England and Wales have little or no access to a local immigration and asylum legal aid provider. For many people seeking security, obtaining legal advice is already difficult, particularly outside of major cities.

Access to affordable legal representation helps us all navigate complex systems, reducing potential mistakes, delays and unnecessary appeals. Investing in legal aid is not simply a matter of fairness. It is a practical way to build back a vital public service that improves the quality and efficiency of decision-making across the system. Instead of building another mechanism with questionable independence to review flawed decisions, the government should focus on preventing flaws in the first place. Fixing Home Office decisions and expanding access to legal aid is the right way to improve fairness, efficiency and public confidence.

____________________

Mark Evans is president of the Law Society of England and Wales.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk