3 Improving the quality of decision
making
14. To be granted asylum, applicants must have a
well-founded fear of persecution as defined by the 1951 United
Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (see box
below). The Directorate faces a number of challenges in reaching
a decision on applications. Many applicants do not possess any
form of identification, possibly an unavoidable consequence of
their departure from their home country, but also potentially
due to their having been coached by their agents, or others, on
how to make a convincing but false application and advised to
destroy their documentation. Some applicants may also have been
the victims of torture and rape.[17]
What is a refugee?
A refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being prosecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it (United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951).
An asylum applicant is someone who has applied for asylum or protection under either the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
|
15. In the first six months of 2003 applications
were received from 146 nationalities. The Directorate's caseworkers
rely on up-to-date knowledge of the situation in relevant countries,
sometimes in quite localised areas, to aid their decision making,
referring to information kept on the Directorate's country information
database. Caseworkers do not, however, necessarily specialise
in dealing with applications from a particular country, which
may make it more difficult for them to keep up-to-date and spot
potentially false claims. The Directorate had tried to achieve
specialisation where possible, at least by region. Its senior
caseworkers were often specialists in particular countries, but
to manage the volume and range of applications effectively some
caseworkers had to deal with applications from more than one country.[18]
16. The number of asylum appeals allowed by adjudicators
is one indicator of the reliability of the initial decision-making
process. The Directorate expects at least 85% of appeals against
its initial decisions to be dismissed, equivalent to an appeals
allowed rate of 15%. The appeals allowed rate has, however, remained
above 15% for most of the period since 1999 (Figure 4).[19]
The Directorate acknowledged that in many cases the appeal had
been upheld because of the quality of the initial decision. In
some cases, nevertheless, a conscientious caseworker might have
made a different judgement on the credibility of an applicant's
claim from that of the adjudicator.[20]Figure
4: Appeals allowed against initial asylum decisions, 1994-2003
The percentage of asylum appeals allowed has consistently
exceeded 15% since 1999
Notes
1 The Directorate could not provide us with an
explanation for the sharp increase in the rate of appeals allowed
in 1999.
2. The number of appeals determined has grown
substantially since 2000.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Home
Office asylum statistics
17. The appeals allowed rate varied significantly
between applicants from different countries as difficult judgements
were often involved. An analysis undertaken by the National Audit
Office found, for example, that in 2003 the appeals allowed rate
ranged from 9% for applicants from Iraq to 38% for those from
Somalia and Sudan. The differences became more significant when
the number of applicants winning their appeal was compared to
the number granted asylum or short-term protection at the initial
stage. During 2003, for example, the Directorate made initial
decisions to grant asylum to 90 applicants from Turkey (and short-term
protection to another 140 applicants) but a further 1,685 people
from Turkey won their appeals against initial refusals (29% of
appellants).[21]
18. The Directorate said that assessing the credibility
of applicants from some countries posed a particular challenge.
There were many well justified cases from Somalia, for example,
but a significant number of claimants from adjacent East African
countries pretended to be Somali, having destroyed their documents.
Some claimants had also already achieved some form of status in
another European country but then came to the United Kingdom to
claim asylum here. Nevertheless, the Directorate accepted that
the current appeals allowed rates for applicants from some countries
were high. It had recently reviewed a sample of completed cases
and planned to feedback the lessons learned to staff.[22]
19. The Directorate may appeal to the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal against an adjudicator's decision. The Tribunal
had heard around 1,000 appeals from the Directorate. 350 applications
first made in 2002 were allowed and 300 were remitted to the adjudicator
for reconsideration. The Directorate reported that it regularly
monitored the results of all appeals and sought to learn lessons.[23]
20. At appeal, the Directorate expects its case to
be put by presenting officers, but the Directorate has been short
of presenting officers since 2002. Presenting officers are civil
servants who outline the Directorate's main reasons for refusing
asylum, and cross-examine the applicant and other witnesses. The
number of officers employed had increased but the Directorate
was still not represented at 30% of asylum appeal hearings in
February 2004 and 17% in March 2004. The Directorate was unable
to comment on whether a greater number of appeals had been upheld
in those cases where presenting officers were not available, but
agreed that the shortfall in presenting officers was unsatisfactory.
It had given priority to certain cases, for example those where
the appellant was in detention, but acknowledged that the arrangements
for deciding priorities were not systematic. In June 2004 50 new
presenting officers were being trained and another 70 were due
to be recruited. Its aim was to achieve 100% representation by
the end of 2004.[24]
21. Around three quarters of applicants refused asylum
or leave to remain at the initial stage, lodge an appeal. This
rate is equivalent to just over half of all asylum applicants.
Some applicants had good grounds for appeal, but the Directorate
considered that in many cases the applicants appealed because
they wanted to postpone their departure. Applicants might also
be advised to appeal by their legal adviser even though their
case was weak. The Legal Services Commission was introducing an
accreditation scheme for solicitors dealing with asylum cases,
which would be fully effective from April 2005. The Commission
would also take over from solicitors the responsibility for assessing
the merits of the case at the appeal stage and determining whether
legal aid should be provided.[25]
22. Legally aided advice accounted for around 30%
of the cost of the initial decision stage (excluding the screening
interview) in 2002-03 (£1,010 out of £3,380). Based
on feedback from adjudicators, the Department for Constitutional
Affairs believed that the quality of representation was good,
but acknowledged that some advisers could be better. The Directorate
had referred around 300 cases of suspected abuse or malpractice
by legal representatives annually to one or more of the relevant
regulatory bodies. Neither the Department for Constitutional Affairs
nor the Home Office had information on the comparative costs of
legal aid for asylum applicants in other countries, including
Scotland. The Department for Constitutional Affairs believed that
the changes recently introduced by the Legal Services Commission,
including the limits on fee rates and the number of hours chargeable
at the initial stage, would achieve better control of the costs
of advice. It expected these measures to save £30 million
a year.[26]
23. The National Audit Office had identified cases
where multiple applications had apparently been made by the same
person, and cases where third parties had alerted the Directorate
to possible concerns but which had not been followed up by the
Directorate. The Directorate had established a separate unit to
deal with multiple applications and all applicants were now fingerprinted.
Efforts to eliminate the backlog and reduce processing times were
also expected to reduce the risk that concerns raised by third
parties were not acted upon. The Directorate could revoke asylum
status if the claim upon which it was based was subsequently found
to be fraudulent. It was, however, unable to report any cases
where this had happened.[27]
17 C&AG's Report, para 4.3 Back
18
Qq 61-62, 128-129 Back
19
Q 39; C&AG's Report, Figure 18 Back
20
Q 35 Back
21
Q 38; C&AG's Report, para 4.10 Back
22
Qq 38-41 Back
23
Qq 122, 126-127 Back
24
Qq 63-65; C&AG's Report, para 4.32 Back
25
Qq 67, 117 Back
26
Qq 59, 69, 71, 98, 100, 107-108, 113; Ev 17-18; C&AG's Report,
Appendix 3 Back
27
Qq 91-93, 133-134; C&AG's Report, para 3.13, case examples
G and H Back
|
