We’re lucky to live in the world’s oldest unbroken democracy – a land where notions of dignity and fairness are generally treasured. But our justice system isn’t perfect. No justice system is. That’s why appeal rights are so essential – allowing people, as they do, to challenge the decisions of public officials in courts and tribunals.
And yet yesterday the Home Secretary singled out appeal rights for destruction. In her speech at the Conservative Party conference, she announced that appeal rights for migrants facing removal will be slashed and that “foreign criminals” will be thrown out of Britain before their removal can be challenged in this country. She also announced plans to further reform the application of the Human Rights Act to non-nationals and accused the British judiciary of misunderstanding the law. This “deport first, appeal later” masterplan will be included in the Government’s looming Immigration Bill, as the Home Office seeks to pass the buck for years of chaotic administration.
Such posturing on immigration is nothing new. But one glance at the figures in this area exposes the danger of this nasty, ill-thought policy. The quality of first-instance decision-making in immigration cases is appalling. In a vast number of cases – in fact almost half of them – decisions are overturned on appeal at the earliest opportunity. If most people did their job wrong 45 per cent of the time they would be disciplined and told to improve. Instead the Home Secretary rearranges the furniture at the immigration service and decides to change the rules.
In 2011/12 alone, 45 per cent of immigration appeals were successful. Fifty-one per cent of entry clearance appeals succeeded; 33 per cent of deportation appeals were allowed and 29 per cent of asylum decisions were overturned. These categories are very likely to involve a human rights element and so it’s vital that appeals can be heard in-country to stop human rights being breached. And this is only the First Tier Tribunal – not taking account of successful appeals in the Upper Tribunal and beyond.
Not allowing appeals in cases engaging Articles 2 and 3 – the right to life and no torture, inhuman or degrading treatment – in this country would be a flagrant breach of the European Convention and almost certainly lead to deaths and mistreatment. There appear to be plans for an exception to get around this problem, but it’s difficult to imagine how such an exception would work successfully in practice.
Regardless, in-country appeals would still be scrapped in all other areas – for example where Article 8, the right to a private and family life, may be breached. This policy is therefore likely unlawful, and will result in potentially thousands of human rights violations – some irreversible in nature.
Taken together with the Home Secretary’s predictable promise that the next Conservative manifesto will (again) pledge to bin the Human Rights Act, it’s a toxic mix. The hypocrisy here is also striking. How can politicians who weep hot tears at torture in countries like Syria seek to deport first and reflect later? And why is it that human rights abuses are always political justification for wars abroad – but never for the protection of the law at home?