Evidence submitted by Ben Hoare Bell Solicitors
(AIA 31)
We attach details of cases which would be adversely
affected by the proposals. Unfortunately pressure of work prevents
us from providing more details.The proposals are arbitrary and
unworkable. Each case is entirely different, and the length of
time you spend on a case often depends on (a) how traumatised
the client or (b) how coherent the client is.
I am a very experienced solicitor used to extracting
understandable instructions from the confused or mentally ill.
Despite 25 years of such experience, I have still found it often
difficult and very time consuming trying to ascertain exactly
what an asylum client is trying to tell you. The client will often
be from a completely different cultural background so that he
or she might gloss over or mention in passing a fact which might
be a key element in their case. It sometimes takes many hours
of careful probing to actually discover what it is the client
is trying to tell you.
Clients are not only from different cultural
backgrounds, but are also often illiterate or simply not used
to explaining events in a logical way. One can spend many frustrating
hours trying to get to the bottom of what has happened.
The whole procedure is made more difficult because
communication has to be through an interpreter.
Many of our clients have already been seen by
legal advisors in the South of England the files that we subsequently
receive often bear evidence of shoddy or negligent work of very
poor quality. We cannot tell from the files how long the earlier
solicitors have claimed to have spent on the file, but we suspect
they will have used up the proposed maximum number of hours. Their
earlier involvement often leads to additional work—it is
much easier if we can start a case from the beginning.
If the proposals are brought in it is very likely
that we will cease doing this area of work. We pride ourselves
in providing good quality representation and the LSC encouraged
us to apply for a contract when the dispersal system was introduced.
The effect of the proposals will be to remove firms such as ours,
leaving exactly the firms the LSC is trying to get rid of—those
that are cynical and who just go through the motions of providing
representation.
BEN HOARE
BELL EXAMPLES
OF ASYLUM
CASES
Example 1
GN spoke English.He arrived in the UK in April
2000. Between June 2000 and January 2001 he received poor quality
legal representation. In November 2000 the Home Office refused
his application for asylum. In January 2001 he came to BHB. When
we received his file it was in very poor order. It was difficult
to follow what had been going on. Poor quality instructions had
led to a misleading request for a medical report, so that the
GPs medical report was equally misleading. This was one of the
factors leading to Home Office refusal. We instructed a forensic
pathologist whose report was subsequently commended by the adjudicator.
The asylum appeal was successful.
Our times and costs were as follows:
Attendances and Preparation 20.1 hours
Total Cost (including letters, telephones etc
. . .) £1,398.61
Disbursements £458.70
Counsels fees £612.96
This was not a complicated case. If we had to
use an interpreter, the cost would have nearly doubled.
Example 2
TM was in his 20s, spoke English and came from Zimbabwe.
He arrived in the UK on the 1 September 2002. He came to our offices
and claimed asylum on the 22 April 2003 although due to various
problems with the address provided by the Home Office and the
Immigration Service, the asylum claim had to be resubmitted several
times and the client had to travel from Sunderland to Liverpool
for a screening interview. Evidence from the client's file was
considered and submitted. The appellant's file was cross-referenced
with his sister. On the 11 July 2003 a detailed SEF was submitted,
which required three lengthy attendances with the client to complete
(including the initial attendance). Following a Home Office Interview
again in Liverpool TM was granted asylum. During the interview
the Home Office Interviewing Officer commented on the detail contained
in the client's SEF. Following the interview TM was granted asylum.
Our times and costs were as follows:
Attendance and Preparation 14.4 hours
Total Cost (including letters, telephone calls
and disbursements) £896.13
Disbursements £80.50 (travel costs to Liverpool
from Sunderland)
Example 3
NB was in his 20s, came from the Democratic
Republic of Congo and spoke Lingala and some English. He came
to the UK on the 14 September 2001 and claimed asylum on arrival.
NB did not initially instruct a solicitor and submitted a SEF
and attended his Home Office Interview by himself. NB was refused
by the Home Office on the 24 October 2001. On the 29 October 2001
NB instructed our firm and an appeal was submitted. Photographs
of NB's injuries were obtained and documents in support of his
claim were translated. NB was interviewed using a Lingala interpreter
which is a very difficult language to find interpreters. A significant
amount of work was required to clarify NB's claim as without representation
the information had not previously been supplied in a coherent
and chronological order. An expert report was obtained on the
country situation, which had to be updated due to the extensive
delay between submitting an appeal (October 2001) and the hearing
of the case (November 2002.) This hearing was in fact adjourned
on two occasions and eventually relisted and heard on the 16 January
2003. A medical report was obtained the results of which required
further investigation of the client's mental health state. A further
psychological report was obtained by a consultant Neuropsychologist
Chartered clinical psychologist which confirmed that NB was suffering
from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. The adjudicator
noted in the determination the following:
"I note the observations in the reasons
for refusal letter. I do not accept that the background evidence
supports what the respondent says"
the adjudicator also goes on to say
"The respondent notes that he appellant did
not leave the DRC even though his problems began in . . . He has
again failed to note that the following three years the appellant
was in custody."
Following the adjudicator's determination a
Grant of Asylum was issued.
Our times and costs were as follows:
Attendances and preparation 27.6 hours
Total Costs £971.33
Disbursements £2,065.79
Counsel's fees £1,023.52
Ben Hoare Bell
26 August 2003
| 
