BILL: proposals 'operate outside legal accountability'

Lawyers this week echoed concerns from an influential parliamentary committee that the government has not done enough to protect human rights in its plans for asylum reform - and they could in fact signify a shift in power to the state that would not stop at asylum cases.

The joint human rights committee said the proposals in the Asylum and Immigration Bill for a single tier of appeal without the avenue of judicial review signified an attempt to make the process 'operate outside normal principles of administrative law and legal accountability'.

The government had argued that there were no provisions in human rights legislation specifying that there should be multi-tiered appeals.

However, the report added: 'This sets a dangerous precedent - governments may be encouraged to take a similar approach to other areas of public administration.'

It also complained about plans to allow the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) to raid law firms, questioning whether interfering with lawyer-client privilege was a 'proportionate' response to existing problems.

Chris Randall, executive committee member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA), questioned whether there were enough restrictions on the proposed new powers of the OISC and agreed that the judicial review ouster clause could be the start of a slippery slope.

Practitioners expressed concerns last week at a meeting held by ILPA and the British Institute of Human Rights.

A briefing by Matrix Chambers described the judicial review provision as 'the most Draconian ouster clause ever seen in parliamentary legislative practice'.

London sole practitioner Tony Paterson, who was present at the meeting, said feelings about the future were now running high.

'We will never be able to run cases properly again, and hundreds of genuine refugees will lose their cases as a result,' he warned.

Paula Rohan