The Government yesterday backed down on plans to end the right of judicial appeal against asylum decisions.
Clause 14, a key and controversial part of the Asylum & Immigration Bill currently going through Parliament, abolishes the current two-tier appeals system to replace it with a single tier tribunal. In its original form, it prevented judicial review of the new Tribunal's decisions, effectively putting asylum decisions beyond the reach of the courts. The so-called 'ouster clause' had drawn fierce criticism from the senior judiciary as well as three separate cross-party parliamentary select committees. Among them, the Lord Chief Justice recently described the clause as "fundamentally in conflict with the rule of law", raising concerns that its implementation would provoke a constitutional crisis. Other legal experts have put forward strong arguments against the removal of judicial safeguards on asylum decisions which would lead to miscarriages of justice, carrying the real risk of sending refugees abroad to torture and death.
Lord Falconer, at the beginning of the second reading of the Bill in the Lords last night, said he had listened carefully to such arguments and would "bring forward amendments to replace the judicial review ouster with a new system allowing oversight by the administrative court in those decisions". It is not yet clear what the new system will entail; the Refugee Council will be keeping a close watch over the Government's plans.
The Refugee Council, which together with other asylum and legal experts has been putting pressure on the Government to withdraw the disputed clause, welcomed the climbdown. Maeve Sherlock, Chief Executive of the Refugee Council, commented:
"Given that the weight of evidence and opinion is so firmly against the plans to block judicial review of flawed asylum decisions, the Government is taking the sensible option and looking again at what it wants to do.
“If it is serious about cutting delays in the asylum system then it needs to reconsider its approach. As the MPs who have looked in detail at the system have pointed out, the real cause of delay in the system does not lie in the appeal process but with the poor quality of initial decisions.
“What’s clear from last night's debate is that the Government should focus its efforts on getting better asylum decisions, rather than attempting to fire-proof bad ones. In 2003 alone, over 16,000 refusals of asylum were found to have been flawed.”
Further information & links
Find out more about the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee on the UK Parliament website.
A number of recent reports have also highlighted the poor quality of initial decisions. The latest is Providing Protection, produced by the Asylum Rights Campaign, of which the Refugee Council is a member.
The Refugee Council is not responsible for the content of external websites.
