Examination of Witness (Questions 180-182)
3 FEBRUARY 2004
THE HONOURABLE
MR JUSTICE
COLLINS
Q180 Mrs Cryer: Sir Andrew, what do you
believe would be the result of the proposed reductions in legal
help and CLR (controlled legal representation) in asylum and immigration
cases, and what about the proposed abolition of legal help prior
to the initial decision?
Sir Andrew Collins: I think it
runs the risk of people not getting their cases properly presented
and properly put forward. I do recognise that the difficulty is
that there are a large number of incompetent advisers, and I do
not only mean legal advisers because there are a lot of people
who persist under the aegis of solicitors sometimes, and this
has been a major problem. Any steps that are taken to try to improve
the quality have my support. Some cases you can deal with in a
relatively short time and a relatively short advice but there
are those which need more consideration, and one of the problems
that all these appellants face is the lack of supporting evidence.
It is almost impossible sometimes to obtain supporting evidence,
for obvious reasons, but solicitors and advisers are aware—
Q181 Mrs Cryer: When you say "lack
of evidence" can be difficult, are you just talking about
asylum seekers or family immigration, because I would have thought
that with family immigration the evidence should be there.
Sir Andrew Collins: Well, it should
be but, of course, again the problem with those is that the appellant
is outside the United Kingdom so you have that problem as well,
and usually it has to be dealt with through a sponsor, as you
know, which does not help. I am worried by the proposals to limit
the legal aid but I do recognise that you have to have an eye
to cost and you have to have some system of ensuring that only
a reasonable amount of work is done, but that should be possibly
for someone, should it not—I do not know—in the Legal
Services Commission, or some equivalent to the old taxing officers?
Mrs Cryer: Thank you.
Q182 Chairman: What is noticeable is
the presence of the sponsor in appeals is generally to the advantage
of applicants, if you look at the statistics of cases.
Sir Andrew Collins: Absolutely,
but the sponsor has to be there because the appellant cannot be.
He is in—wherever.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Sir Andrew.
We are very grateful for your help. We have more witnesses to
see and you have been of great assistance to us.
| 
