New report sets out what is known about remote provision of immigration and asylum advice, and what needs to be known
A very interesting new report by the Public Law Project (PLP) considers the pros and cons of the use of remote legal advice for immigration and asylum cases.
You can download the 39-page report here.
The report was authored by Dr. Jo Hynes, senior researcher at PLP, and it sets out to explain the current knowledge on the remote provision of immigration and asylum advice, as well as identifying areas where further understanding is needed.
Research for the report was conducted in partnership with A & M Consultancy, the Helen Bamber Foundation, and Asylum Aid. Interviews were conducted with people with experience of both in-person and remote advice, including asylum seekers and refugees.
Four key questions were addressed in the research: 1. What is the impact of delivering advice remotely on services? 2. How does remote advice provision affect clients' experiences, behaviour, and outcomes, and how does this differ across demographic groups? 3. Which types of clients benefit most from remote advice provision? 4. How can quality standards for remote advice provision be defined?
Overall, the report finds that while remote advice can be more convenient for some, it is only suitable for certain situations. Clients should be able to choose between remote and in-person advice based on their needs.
Importantly, the report finds that remote advice is not a panacea for the current severe shortage of legal aid providers in many areas of the country. Indeed, the research found that many of the challenges and barriers associated with remote advice stemmed from broader issues related to the collapse of legal aid provider capacity, and these obstacles often affected all forms of advice delivery, not just remote services.
The report's key findings are as follows:
• Remote advice was more convenient for some legal aid providers and clients, particularly for short consultations and for clients who had medical conditions which made travelling difficult or who felt remote calls enabled them to speak more anonymously.
• Remote advice was suitable for some types of conversations and some people, but clients need to be able to make an informed decision about whether remote or in-person advice is most appropriate for their circumstances. For this to be a meaningful choice, providers need to be able to offer remote and in-person advice.
• Remote advice was likely to be inappropriate when clients had not met their solicitor at all, when they were experiencing significant mental health issues, when they did not have a private, quiet space, or when it was not their choice.
• Building trust between a client and their legal representative was perceived as easier in-person, but once trust had been established it made any future remote interactions easier. Establishing this trust through emotional support and reassurance was vital in allowing interviewees to feel comfortable enough to share their stories fully. Remote advice therefore worked best when clients already had an established relationship with their legal representative.
• Many of the challenges and barriers generated by remote advice were a result of the wider issues in the collapse of legal aid provider capacity and were often obstacles that cut across all modes of advice delivery. Remote advice is not a safe harbour in an ocean of unmet need, but one intrinsically connected to the wider systemic issues facing the legal aid sector.
Jo Hynes emphasised: "While remote advice could be more convenient in some scenarios, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution to the immigration legal aid crisis. Wherever possible, refugees and people seeking asylum need to have a say in how they speak to their legal representatives."
More research is needed on the use of remote advice, PLP concludes, as much remains unclear. The report recommends that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) should conduct or commission research into the impact of remote advice, including on client outcomes. This research should examine case success rates and the timeliness of case progression, while also identifying who can and cannot access remote advice and determining for whom it is beneficial.
Dr Natalie Byrom, a researcher and policy adviser with expertise in justice reform, notes in the report's foreword: "[This] study highlights the dearth of research linking the mode of legal advice delivery to case outcomes, case progression and timeliness. The limited research that does exist suggests that remote advice delivery may increase case duration and result in worse outcomes for clients. Verifying these findings in the context of asylum and immigration is vital to any assessment of the cost-efficacy of expanding remote advice schemes. Beyond ensuring that scarce resources are not wasted on ineffective or inefficient services, establishing the impact of remote advice on case duration is vital to deliver wider policy goals – such as supporting economic integration. Previous research conducted in Switzerland demonstrates that delays in asylum processes can have a significant negative impact on the subsequent employment rate of successful claimants. This study identifies the need to replicate research of this kind in the UK."