Your recent article '"Unethical" solicitors fail asylum seekers' drew attention to the difficult job of representing asylum seekers who have been detained in order to 'fast-track' their asylum claims (see [2006] Gazette, 12 October, 1).


The real scandal is that this process is allowed to exist at all, and that legal aid is denied to detainees who have appeals within the process if the prospects of their appeal succeeding are less than 50%.



The process is this: on day one you are appointed duty solicitor; on day two you must attend an interview between your client and the Home Office and set out your client's case; on day three the Home Office makes the decision invariably to refuse asylum; on day four you advise on grounds of appeal and whether the legal aid merits test is met for an appeal; on day five the appeal is lodged, and by day nine it will be heard by an immigration judge with the Home Office represented by its own paid advocate.



The success rate on fast-track appeals is no better than 3% - this compares with a 14%-28% success rate at appeal hearing centres outside of the fast track. Those asylum seekers unlucky enough to be placed into fast-track detention are at a distinct disadvantage because the fast-track process does not give enough time to prepare the case thoroughly.



Detainees are doubly disadvantaged if they have no lawyer to argue their cases at an appeal hearing.



The Immigration Law Practitioners Association is lobbying for all detainees put through the fast-track process to be guaranteed legal aid for representation at their appeals. This relatively inexpensive reform is the minimum needed to give the fast track some semblance of fairness.



Matthew Davies, Immigration Law Practitioners Association executive committee, London