R(on The Application of The Refugee Legal Centre) v Secretary of State for The Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BROOKE |
| Judgment Date | 16 September 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 1239 |
| Docket Number | C4/2004/0930 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 September 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 1239
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
(MR JUSTICE COLLINS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Brooke
(Vice President of The Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
C4/2004/0930
MR MICHAEL FORDHAM (instructed by Public Law Project, London, N7 6NE) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR ROBIN TAM (instructed by tHE Treasury Solicitor, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
In this matter Mr Michael Fordham, who appears pro bono for the Refugee Legal Centre, is applying for a protective order in relation to his client's costs, in advance of what is scheduled as a substantive hearing before the full court next week, when it will be determined whether his clients should have a protective order in relation to their costs for the full hearing of the appeal which is, as I understand it, listed before the full court in early October.
When Sedley LJ granted the Centre permission to appeal, he said:
"For the reasons canvassed in the skeleton argument there is a respectable prospect of success. But the issues are in any event such as to merit the Court of Appeal's attention."
I made it clear during the course of argument that I shared that assessment.
The underlying litigation relates to a fast track pilot scheme to deal with certain asylum claims which has been running at the Harmondsworth Removal Centre since March 2003. Under this scheme a choice is made of asylum seekers who are considered to have straightforward claims and who could be detained at the Centre pending a quick decision. It is said that there is a sharp focus on high quality decision-making and on site access to legal advice and that, as far as possible, the same case worker and the same legal representative should be involved from start to finish. The converse position has been perceived by many with experience of our asylum arrangements as one of the weaknesses of the previous arrangements. Influential reports have been published from time to time laying stress on the importance of the quality of the initial asylum decision and the way in which that decision should be reached by a process which is much more cooperative than confrontational in contrast to what has unhappily been the past experience in this jurisdiction.
For the purposes of the scheme the Home Office has been selecting single male applicants from countries it believes to be those where in general there is no serious risk of persecution. There is a screening process to identify those suitable for the fast-track treatment. Collins J said on the evidence that 58 per cent of them come from the port of entry and 42 per cent are in-country referrals, many of whom are illegal entrants. They include some overstayers and others who have been in this country for some time and claim asylum only when they are discovered in order to avoid their removal.
Those applicants who are considered suitable are taken to the Harmondsworth Centre. Before their arrival a duty solicitor, or the applicant's legal representative, if he has one, is told of the estimated time of arrival at Harmondsworth and also the time that the all-important interview will take place. Normally the interview will take place in the afternoon following the day of arrival. The scheme now, which has been refined in the light of experience, is that the representatives can take instructions in the morning when an interpreter is provided, if necessary, as is often the case.
When the asylum seeker arrives at the centre there is an induction interview at which he or she is told the time of the interview with the Home Office representative and that legal representation will be provided free of charge if no representation has already been arranged. The arrangements have been adjusted since July 2003 because it was appreciated that the asylum interview on the day of arrival provided for too tight a timescale.
The evidence shows that the Home Office has been picking officials with experience to conduct the interviews, which last between 1 3/4; hours and 2 3/4; hours. The officials are given discretion as to how to conduct the interviews and the extent to which breaks may be needed. They are told in their instructions that they must make sure that the asylum seeker is fit and well, adopt a sensitive approach, be prepared to be flexible, accede to any reasonable application for a break or for further time, and be aware that the applicant may have to be taken from the fast track. It may be that medical evidence or other evidence has to be sought, or that the claim turns out to be rather less straightforward than first appeared. From what evidence I have seen so far it is said that, by 5 September 2003, 18 had been taken from the fast-track either by the official conducting the interview or subsequently by the direction of an adjudicator.
The asylum seeker arrives on day 1. On day 2 he takes part in the process by which he first has a long interview with a legal representative whom he has probably never met before. Very often there is a problem of a language barrier. The interview with the Home Office takes place on the afternoon of day 2 and the decision is made on day 3. It is usually a refusal. Thereafter there is a telescoped timetable for appeals which the judge set out in his judgment: very rapid appeal to an adjudicator and a fairly rapid process of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, if permission to appeal is granted, culminating (if the applicant wishes to take it that far) with a statutory review for which there is a ten day opportunity to make the application. The evidence shows that a High Court judge deals with that application within a week or so. If the refusal is repeated throughout the system, the procedure may take five weeks and then the asylum seeker will be deported.
Ninety beds were originally allotted to the scheme. Since October 2003 there have been 120 beds. The evidence before the judge showed that out of 529 cases there have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
...was the fairness of the very streamlined new arrangements for processing asylum-seekers' claims at Harmondsworth (see the judgment at [2004] EWCA Civ 1239 at [3]–[9] for a description of the scheme) which clearly warranted the scrutiny of this 51 Although the Centre's appeal ultimately fai......
-
Protective Expenses Orders and public interest litigation
...Disarmament) v Prime Minister2121[2002] EWHC 2712. and R (Refugee Legal Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.2222[2004] EWCA Civ 1239. In the former, a case brought by CND arguing that Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise use of force against Iraq, the Division......