Evidence submitted by the Zimbabwe Association
(AIA 20)
A support group for Zimbabwean asylum seekers
and refugees in the UK. Founded by Zimbabwean asylum seekers and
fellow Zimbabwean supporters October 2001. Applying for charitable
status. Run on a volunteer basis. Works with Refugee Council,
Bail Circle, Medical Foundation, Immigration Advisory Service
amongst others.
1. THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
RECENT REFORMS
HAVE PRODUCED
ANY SIGNIFICANT
EFFICIENCY SAVINGS
AND/OR
IMPROVED THE
QUALITY OF
THE APPEALS
PROCESS
The quality of the appeals process is badly
hampered by the scarcity of competent legal representation available
to those appealing. People in this position may have been dispersed
throughout the UK to areas which have little specialist expertise.
People on NASS support have very limited funds. To travel to a
neighbouring town in search of a solicitor prepared to take on
their case can take a huge portion of their weekly support. To
travel to London where there is the largest pool of expertise
can prove impossible without the help of friends, churches or
support groups.
2. THE COSTS
TO PUBLIC
FUNDS OF
SUPPORTING NEW
APPEALS STRUCTURES,
SUCH AS
THE ASYLUM
SUPPORT ADJUDICATORS,
AND OF
SUPPORTING THE
EXTENSION OF
LEGAL AID
Better representation and preparation at the
interview stage would reduce the number of appeals lodged. Our
perception is that a small number of firms are cramming in large
numbers of clients and providing them with a minimal service.
We feel that there should be a mechanism in place which restricts
the number of clients being rushed through any one firm. We feel
that profit is the only motive in firms taking on so many clients.
3. THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THE IMMIGRATION
APPELLATE AUTHORITIES
COULD BE
MADE MORE
EFFICIENT, WITHOUT
SACRIFICING FAIRNESS
IAA could be made more efficient if independent
country reports were prepared on a more regular basis by academics
or recognised experts so that adjudicators were well briefed on
the "current" state of any particular country. The use
of flawed or out-of-date country reports as in the recent case
of Zimbabwe, do a great disservice making it impossible for adjudicators
to be fair, and resulting in asylum seekers being forced to appeal
to the Tribunal or apply for Judicial Review, overloading the
system still further.
We are astonished at the amount of bad legal
advisers and representatives clogging the system. Having witnessed
them turning up to court late (if at all), unprepared, original
documents not being presented, bundles in a mess—why are
they allowed to continue in this way? Is it not possible to have
a simple mechanism whereby each time a legal rep/adviser is late,
fails to arrive, produces a shoddy or skimpy bundle, etc the adjudicator
simply ticks boxes on a relevant form, and after an agreed number
of abuses, the legal rep/adviser is prohibited from representing
people.
The present situation dissuades people from
making complaints as the ensuing correspondence and documentation
can keep one tied up for months—many people simply don't
have the time to complain. This results in useless legal rep/advisers
continuing to receive a good living while wrecking countless cases.
4. WHETHER THE
RELEVANT PROCEDURE
RULES PROPERLY
BALANCE FAIRNESS
AND JUSTICE
WITH EFFICIENCY
At present the asylum seeker is in a very disadvantageous
position right from the outset of their case. Contrary to popular
belief, many asylum seekers know very little, if anything, about
the whole process. Support groups such as the Zimbabwe Association
have attempted to remedy this lack by providing information that
will enable Zimbabweans to realise what is needed to back their
claims. Once they know the types of evidence that are required
they are able to put into motion the necessary steps to obtain
the birth certificates, death certificates, violence reports,
etc. which may be relevant to their cases. Cases are then decided
far more quickly and fairly. In the past, people with terrible
cases of suffering have been denied asylum simply because they
were not properly briefed by their legal representatives and did
not understand what documentation they needed.
5. WHETHER THERE
IS SUFFICIENT
AVAILABILITY AND
PROVISION BOTH
OF LEGAL
ADVICE AND
REPRESENTATION AND
OF INTERPRETATION
FACILITIES FOR
APPELLANTS IN
ASYLUM AND
IMMIGRATION CASES
There is neither sufficient availability nor
provision of competent legal advice and representation. Interpretation
facilities in Zimbabwean cases have been badly flawed. Some interpreters
(particularly at Oakington) have earned a reputation for leaking
details of the asylum seekers and their cases back to Zimbabwe
where their families have been targeted. We have had a number
of disturbing reports of pro-Zanu PF Zimbabwean employees of the
Immigration Department, interviewing Zimbabwean asylum seekers
who are fleeing from that very party.
We have also had many reports of legal reps
bullying their clients into accepting interpreters, when the client
speaks good English as do the vast majority of Zimbabweans arriving
in the UK. We feel this is a complete abuse of public resources,
while recognising that a small percentage of Zimbabweans still
require this service.
6. THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
"NON-SUSPENSIVE"
APPEALS PROVIDE
AN ADEQUATE
RIGHT OF
APPEAL
In cases where there is a right to go to Tribunal,
this can hardly be considered a right when there are no competent
lawyers prepared to take on the cases, not because of the merits
or otherwise of the particular case, but simply because all the
competent lawyers are already overloaded and less competent lawyers
are not capable.
May 2003
| 
