Advertisement

Home Office lawyers routinely deploying ‘legally unsound’ arguments in court, say immigration solicitors

PA
PA

Home Office lawyers are using “legally unsound” and “most extraordinary” arguments in court as they push for migrants to be denied the right to be in Britain, according to immigration solicitors.

Evidence submitted to the government’s independent immigration watchdog cites one example of a Home Office lawyer arguing that teenager who had never been to Afghanistan and did not speak the language could “easily readjust” to life in Kabul.

Another claimed a person with a physics degree in English might have needed to hire a proxy for a basic English language test.

The document, compiled by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), has been presented to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) as supporting evidence for an inspection he is undertaking into the work of civil servants who represent the Home Office at appeal hearings, known as presenting officers.

It highlights that between 2013 and 2019, the proportion of successful asylum appeals increased from 25 per cent to 41 per cent — which it says indicates the Home Office is regularly requiring its lawyers to defend poor quality decisions in cases where applicants should have been granted protection at an earlier stage.

This is likely to have a “particularly harmful effect” on appellants who are unrepresented or poorly represented, who risk “unfair negative credibility findings” that go unchallenged, with potential consequences for their access to protection from persecution, according to the dossier.

Solicitors note that Home Office presenting officers “tend to lack understanding of important procedural questions” and have “little or no knowledge of the applicable law”, giving the example of one “notorious case” where on being told by a judge that she was wrong in law, a presenting officer replied: “You have your law, I have mine”.

The briefing goes on to state: “Such deep misconceptions are not isolated. Presenting officers routinely deploy legally unsound arguments in the form of incorrect or misleading mantras.”

In some cases, presenting officers appear to be “as frustrated as everyone else” by the Home Office’s decisions, according to the dossier. One reportedly “dispiritedly trailing off” as they argued the grounds of appeal during one hearing and said: “To be honest I wouldn’t have appealed this one [...] I just don’t see how the judge has made a mistake [...] I know you will make it look like I tried”.

The dossier goes on to note: “That presenting officer knew he had a terrible case, which could not succeed without a serious injustice, and did not want to waste everyone’s time with it — but was clearly still worried his manager would find out that he had not pursued it vigorously.”

John Vassiliou, partner at McGill and Co solicitors, said ILPA’s evidence echoed many issues that he and his colleagues had encountered in recent years.

He said that while there used to be “much more scope” for presenting officers to review a decision that had ended up on their desk and to reach their own view that the decision was unsustainable and ought to be withdrawn, now there seemed to be “far less room for such initiative”.

“The lack of preparation time hampers a proper dialogue between parties in advance of the hearing. In other courts, representatives acting for parties will regularly speak in the lead-up to a case in order to agree the relevant issues and narrow the focus of the hearing,” Mr Vassiliou added.

“As ILPA points out, presenting officers are often forced to defend poor first instance decision making, even in cases where the Home Office position is indefensible. This not only creates great cost and stress for appellants, but also takes up public resources.”

The briefing has been written in response to a call for evidence from David Bolt, chief inspector of borders and immigration, ahead of his inspection into presenting officers, which is expected to be published later this year.

A Home Office spokesperson said it "did not recognise" the description of Home Office staff given by ILPA.

“The Home Office is always keen to improve and we will work with the Chief Inspector to take forward his recommendations following the publication of his report," they said.

Read more

Home Office launches legal battle to defend hostile environment

Surge in suspected modern slavery victims facing Home Office delays

Torture victim unlawfully detained by Home Office speaks out

Home Office forced to pay £100,000 to man detained for 838 days