Tuesday, September 04, 2018
Another Government appeals failure
The UK Government do not have a good experience with appeals processes. As reported here, the majority of people appealing against the decision to deny them disability benefit are now winning their cases. In the first three months of 2018, tribunals ruled in favour of claimants in 69% of cases where people had been turned down for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). Assessments for both have been branded ‘a total failure’ and ‘not fit for purpose’.
Now, a similar malaise has hit the Government's process for assessing applications by asylum seekers and other migrants to stay in the UK. The Guardian says that nearly three-quarters of final immigration court appeals brought by the Home Office against rulings allowing these groups of people to stay in the UK are dismissed.
The paper says that the low success rate raises concerns the Home Office is putting people through lengthy and expensive court processes when it has little chance of winning. Whilst one lawyer is quoted as saying that the figures, which will be associated with the “hostile environment” policy, showed the government was needlessly “stopping people getting on with their lives”:
People seeking refuge in the UK are initially given a decision by the Home Office on whether they will be allowed to stay. If their application is rejected, they are entitled to appeal against that decision in an immigration court. In the year from April 2017 to March 2018, 11,974 cases were determined in court, with 4,332 of the Home Office’s decisions being overturned.
Of those decisions granting leave to remain, the Home Office then referred 1,235 to the upper tribunal for further appeal, with 900 (73%) rejected by an independent judge, according to a freedom of information response.
The figures will add to concerns about the treatment of people brought to the immigration court, with lengthy delays often part of the process. People can wait more than a year for an initial appeal to be heard. If the judge then rules they can stay in the UK and the Home Office appeals against that, it may be another year or more before the second hearing.
Advocates for asylum seekers say that during that time people cannot get on with their lives: they are often prevented from working, accessing healthcare or renting a home during this time and are subjected to enormous anxiety. For those who are already vulnerable and traumatised, there are concerns the delay and uncertainty may further damage their mental and physical health.
Of course these figures relate to appeals against successful appeals, but there is still a 37% success rate in overturning the original decision. In both cases it seems that there is a need to review the process to ensure that outcomes are quicker and more equitable.
Now, a similar malaise has hit the Government's process for assessing applications by asylum seekers and other migrants to stay in the UK. The Guardian says that nearly three-quarters of final immigration court appeals brought by the Home Office against rulings allowing these groups of people to stay in the UK are dismissed.
The paper says that the low success rate raises concerns the Home Office is putting people through lengthy and expensive court processes when it has little chance of winning. Whilst one lawyer is quoted as saying that the figures, which will be associated with the “hostile environment” policy, showed the government was needlessly “stopping people getting on with their lives”:
People seeking refuge in the UK are initially given a decision by the Home Office on whether they will be allowed to stay. If their application is rejected, they are entitled to appeal against that decision in an immigration court. In the year from April 2017 to March 2018, 11,974 cases were determined in court, with 4,332 of the Home Office’s decisions being overturned.
Of those decisions granting leave to remain, the Home Office then referred 1,235 to the upper tribunal for further appeal, with 900 (73%) rejected by an independent judge, according to a freedom of information response.
The figures will add to concerns about the treatment of people brought to the immigration court, with lengthy delays often part of the process. People can wait more than a year for an initial appeal to be heard. If the judge then rules they can stay in the UK and the Home Office appeals against that, it may be another year or more before the second hearing.
Advocates for asylum seekers say that during that time people cannot get on with their lives: they are often prevented from working, accessing healthcare or renting a home during this time and are subjected to enormous anxiety. For those who are already vulnerable and traumatised, there are concerns the delay and uncertainty may further damage their mental and physical health.
Of course these figures relate to appeals against successful appeals, but there is still a 37% success rate in overturning the original decision. In both cases it seems that there is a need to review the process to ensure that outcomes are quicker and more equitable.
