The principles of fairness, equality of arms and justice demand that both parties are treated fairly in a fair trial.


The Immigration and Nationality Directorate, now known as Border & Immigration Authority, has recently almost doubled its application and processing fees both in and outside the UK. This increases the legitimate expectations for applicants that a just and fair decision will be made.



It has been seen for many years that the majority of applications for entry clearance were refused by the entry clearance officers (ECOs), acting on behalf of the secretary of state overseas, on trivial and unconnected issues.



The applicants lose their application fee, thereby subjecting them to further costs and loss of time by way of appeal.



The majority of refusal decisions, when appealed, are allowed by the immigration judges, implying that the initial decision-making by the ECO was faulty and unfair, but there is no award of costs/penalty against the defective decision-maker.



The European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act provide for fair hearings and trials, and these cannot be achieved unless fair decision-making is improved, which could be done through giving immigration judges the power to award costs against the decision-maker.



I can see no reason why this area is left unattended and cannot be resolved to improve the quality of decision-making.



It is estimated that an ECO appeal costs an applicant in excess of £2,000, in addition to his/her initial application fee, travel expenses, other expenses and loss of time. It is also an abuse of the courts' precious time.



Muzaffar Mansoor, Dean Manson Solicitors, London