Written evidence submitted by Brian Thomson,
Liverpool Law School, University of Liverpool (AIA 41)
I copy a message I sent to Ross Cranston QC
MP. I hope that the Committee can consider the narrow point in
relation to asylum and immigration and would be persuaded to include
an investigation of Tribunals in its future work programme.
I wonder if I may make a particular point directed
at the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee's consideration
of asylum & immigration but which is related to a wider point
also within the committee's remit? It relates to the Asylum and
Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill's proposals on appeals.
The proposal to collapse the two tribunal tiers to a single tribunal
is in conflict with the Leggatt Review of Tribunals (2001) which
was accepted after consultation by the LCD in March 2003. What
Leggatt proposed was a Unified Tribunal Service which would have
9 divisions ( 1 of which would deal with immigration, including
asylum), and a further appellate tier and then there could be
appeals on a point of law to the Court of Appeal. Judicial review
would be severely restricted but there
would not be an ouster clause stopping the Court
of Appeal being able totake an appeal on a point of law from a
tribunal, although it would be expected that the two tiers of
tribunals would cover the vast majority of cases so that cases
going to the general courts would be relatively few. Given that
much of the current Bill's concerns on appeals are actually met
in the Leggatt proposals for all tribunals, it seems at the least
unfortunate to move away from the March 2003 acceptance of Leggatt
in March 2003 and its systematic approach for all tribunals, and
to revert to the bad old ways of ad hocery in tribunals. The March
acceptance of Leggatt announced a phased approach and Immigration
was highlighted as 1 of the 10 pioneer tribunal systems to be
incorporated into the proposed Tribunals Service.
My narrow point is that it is undesirable to
break away from the Leggatt general blueprint on all tribunals
as the current Bill proposes. I would suggest that since Leggatt
gives most of what the government wants, and as most of those
giving evidence suggest that the current two tiers are necessary,
the proposed single tribunal is a bad idea. If implemented Leggatt
would cut down on a great deal of the asylum and immigration litigation
arising out of proceedings in the two tribunal tiers. I would
suggest that it is objectionable in principle to have an ouster
clause (possibly acceptable if national security is in play see
eg Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s.67(8)). My wider
point is that the Committee should consider looking at the whole
field of tribunals as it is of great significance with tribunals
determining a surprisingly large number of disputes, mainly between
the citizen and the state. Lord Irvine when giving evidence before
the Home Affairs Select Committee on 16 October 2001 on his priorities
chose to talk about Leggatt before the Auld Report on the Criminal
Justice. Clearly the priority accorded to the whole field of tribunals
has slipped but I suggest the Committee should investigate the
topic.
Brian Thompson
Liverpool Law School
The University of Liverpool
18 December 2003
| 
