Public Law Project and Migrant and Refugee Children's Legal Unit identify five key failings that undermine asylum system's legal framework
A comprehensive new report by the Public Law Project (PLP) and the Migrant and Refugee Children's Legal Unit (MiCLU) at Islington Law Centre details systemic failures within the UK asylum system's legal framework.
Image credit: WikipediaThe 35-page report, Punishing the victim: How the UK's broken asylum system fails the people it should protect, can be downloaded here.
It provides both a legal perspective—highlighting fundamental issues with the asylum system's legal framework—and an asylum seekers' perspective, detailing widespread problems in administration, decision-making, and support services. Based on the experiences of asylum seekers and their legal representatives, it identifies five key failings, including problems securing quality legal representation, unsafe conditions for disclosing traumatic experiences, poor Home Office decision-making, inadequate financial support, and policies that push people toward unsafe returns.
PLP and MiCLU highlight that successive governments have made significant political and legislative efforts to reduce the number of Albanian asylum claims. Section 59 of the new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, for example, would make Albanian asylum claims generally inadmissible. With this in mind, the report focuses on the experiences of six Albanian asylum seekers in the UK, providing detailed case studies that illustrate the real-life impact of asylum policies.
"The Albanian community requires particular attention at present to ensure that their treatment is fair, lawful, non-discriminatory, and in compliance with their human rights and dignity," PLP and MiCLU stated.
Lee Marsons, PLP senior researcher and author of the report, added that Albanians are being used as scapegoats by UK governments who ignore the reality of blood feuds, LGBTQ+ persecution, and modern slavery in Albania. "Sadly, Albania has become a proxy in the political fight over the UK's broken asylum system. But the evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that Albania is unsafe for far too many of its citizens," Marsons said.
After setting out case studies of six Albanian asylum seekers, the report then explores in detail the five common, key failings that undermine the UK's asylum system. They are summarised as follows:
1. Difficulty accessing quality legal advice and representation: Because asylum legal advice and representation is a "legal aid desert", with a dwindling number of increasingly unsustainable providers, asylum seekers frequently struggle to access publicly funded legal advice and representation when they need it. There can be long delays finding a solicitor with the capacity to take on cases and, even when a solicitor is found, there can be serious quality concerns due to the unsustainable asylum legal aid market, such as long waiting lists; inability to dedicate adequate time to cases and client care; lack of expertise to meet to an asylum seeker's complex needs; and law offices can be located a long distance from where they are required.
2. Difficulty making personal and traumatic disclosures: The asylum system requires people to make highly personal and often traumatic disclosures about their private lives, which are often the source of great shame or fear. Yet, throughout the process, the Home Office does not provide the conditions or safe spaces to support individuals to share their experiences and needs. The result is too many wrongful refusals of initial claims; too many successful appeals in the tribunals; and the consumption of additional resources through the necessity for fresh claims.
3. Systemically poor Home Office processes for decision-making: Once claims are submitted, the problems continue. There are endemic delays in Home Office decision-making, with decisions taking at least many months and, in some cases, even years. The longest delay detailed in this report was nearly five years. Worse, when decisions are ultimately made, particularly to refuse claims, reasons for refusal letters (RFRLs) can be low-quality, difficult to understand, and inadequately justified and reasoned according to evidence. This – again – produces upstream costs with the necessity of appeals.
4. Inability to meet basic needs due to inadequate financial support: While their asylum claim is being considered or their appeal being heard by a tribunal, people can be provided with financial support by the Home Office to prevent destitution. Local authorities also have a duty to provide accommodation and support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The evidence in this report is that these safety nets are not working effectively. Adult asylum seekers regularly cannot meet their essential needs due to the meagre financial support available from the Home Office via so-called "asylum support" – currently £49.18 a week.
5. Encouraging returns to unsafe countries: [The report's] case studies illustrate the flaws in the current legal framework for returning people to countries where there are significant safety concerns. Specifically, section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 requires the Home Office to certify, unless there are strong reasons not to, that claims from nationals of some countries are "clearly unfounded". This renders them automatically unsuccessful. Section 94 countries include Albania. The result is the presumptive removal of vulnerable people from the UK to potentially serious harm.
The report concludes with a series of recommendations for reforming the UK's asylum system. These recommendations include developing a long-term strategy for the sustainability of immigration legal aid, improving the quality of asylum legal services, and making screening interviews more effective at identifying and responding to vulnerabilities. The report also calls for the establishment of a cross-government task force to address delays in the asylum system and improve the quality of Home Office decision-making.