The creation of the new Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) has been heavily criticised by immigration lawyers for reducing an asylum claimant’s right to appeal.

The AIT, to be launched in April 2005 by combining the Immigration Adjudicators and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, will merge the current two-tier system of asylum appeals into one and also make it more difficult for failed appellants to continue through the courts.


Alison Stanley, a partner at London law firm Bindman & Partners and chairwoman of the Law Society’s immigration law committee, said the establishment of the AIT was an ‘extremely worrying’ development.


The key complaint is that an asylum seeker who fails with an appeal to the AIT will only be able to go on to appeal to a High Court judge for a review if there has been an actual error in law in the rejection of the case. An error by the AIT in judging the safety of returning asylum seekers to their home countries would not suffice for a review.


Legal aid will also not be paid up front for any cases that go to review, thereby encouraging lawyers only to take the most secure cases.


A spokesman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said: ‘There are too many frivolous claims. The new system is easier to understand for everyone [and] possibly will mean less spending on legal aid.’


However, Ms Stanley said she and other immigration lawyers were unhappy about the erosion of a claimant’s access to ‘an objective person’, in the shape of a High Court judge.


She added that it was vital to have full rights of appeal because the Home Office had a ‘terrible’ record for making errors on who should be allowed to stay in Britain.


Ms Stanley stressed that this was a ‘life and death’ issue for asylum seekers who were sent back incorrectly without a proper appeal process. She suggested the new AIT could see innocent people killed by returning them to dangerous regimes.


Mr Justice Hodge has been appointed president-designate of the AIT.


Richard Tromans