Drop plans for new appeals body

The Law Society of England and Wales has strongly advised that the UK government should abandon its plans to establish a new Independent Appeals Body for immigration and asylum appeals. Instead, their focus should be on addressing the underlying causes of the current asylum backlog and delays. Responding to the Home Office's call for evidence on this proposed body, Law Society president Mark Evans expressed concern over the government's approach.

Evans stated "Asylum and immigration reforms should focus on the Home Office getting decisions right first time," highlighting that replacing the experienced First-Tier Tribunal with a lay appeals body jeopardises individuals' rights to a fair hearing. This is especially troubling as the Home Office, a party involved in the appeals, is leading the proposal, raising questions about the independence of such a body.

He further noted that previous systems relying on unqualified adjudicators were unsustainable, stating "Previous appeals systems that relied on adjudicators without legal qualifications were ultimately abandoned because they were not fit for purpose." The government should instead confront the actual reasons behind delays. EVans recommended stabilising asylum policy, enhancing the quality of initial decisions made by the Home Office, improving efficiency in the current tribunal system, and ensuring that legal aid is adequately funded.

Evidence indicates a pressing need to improve the quality of Home Office decisions, as shown by its own data revealing that only 52% of decisions met its quality standard in 2023/24. The National Audit Office reported that significant errors were found in 42% of sampled Home Office asylum decisions for the year ending May 2025, and 45% of asylum refusals reviewed were overturned by the First-Tier Tribunal in the year ending March 2025.

Evans stressed the importance of thorough consultation, saying "Such major reforms require proper consultation and engagement." He criticized the government’s decision to hold a rushed, four-week consultation during Easter, stating "A four-week consultation, over Easter, is unacceptable, even if extended in the eleventh hour by two weeks." He argued that hurried decisions could result in repeating existing mistakes or creating new ones. The Law Society called for a genuine opportunity to engage with the government and for a reasoned response to their concerns