Spotlight : Asylum Support Adjudicators
Sehba Haroon Storey, the Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator, talks about the work of the adjudicators and the challenges they face.
Who are the Asylum Support Adjudicators?
The Asylum Support Adjudicators (ASA) provide an independent appeal service for asylum seekers whose applications to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) for support have been refused or discontinued.
The ASA were set up by the Home Office in response to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which established new support arrangements for asylum seekers and their dependants. An independent service, the ASA only consider appeals against NASS for refusal or termination of support for asylum seekers and their dependants and more recently to failed asylum seekers.
Sehba Haroon Storey was appointed Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator in August 2000. She came to the post with a strong track record in the areas of immigration, asylum and welfare rights. Although she had extensive experience of tribunal work stretching back to 1980, setting up a brand new tribunal service was a huge challenge, but one she relished.
She says, "We had literally to start from scratch and it was left up to myself and Gill Carter, the Deputy Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator, to decide how we set up the ASA. As well as publicising the new service, one of our biggest challenges was to win over people who questioned our independence; we are still formally part of the Home Office. Fortunately, time and experience have helped and I believe we have reassured most people of our judicial independence and that we decide each case upon its own merit with no interference from the Home Office."
How many cases are there?
The number of cases heard by the ASA is very fluid. The workload is affected by frequent legislative changes in the Immigration and Asylum field such as the introduction of fresh rights of appeal for failed asylum seekers and asylum seekers' families. There is no right of appeal against the decisions of the ASA and the only remedy is by way of judicial review.
The service started off slowly, receiving just 258 appeals in the first year. However, this number rose steeply in the third year with around 3,800 appeals being received. Between January 2003 and March 2005 the ASA saw a steady decline in the number of appeals. This was due in part to the removal of a right of appeal from in-country asylum seekers and partly to a reduction in the numbers of people seeking asylum in the UK.
The picture is however changing. With effect from March 2005, new rights of appeal to failed asylum seekers refused Section 4 support (commonly referred to as "Hard Cases payments") and discontinuance of support to failed asylum seeker families were introduced by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. As a result, the ASA are busy once again with receipt of appeals currently averaging 200 per month and set to rise in the coming weeks to 300-360 per month.
Such fluidity presents additional challenges for Sehba who needs to ensure that she has enough adjudicators to hear the appeals within the strict timeframes. Unlike other tribunals, the ASA have to determine appeals within 4-9 days of receipt for written appeals and no later than 12 day of receipt for oral appeals. As a consequence, adjudicators, all of whom have other commitments, work long and onerous hours. But there are no backlogs.
Sehba says, "We are very conscious that the people we are dealing with are potentially destitute; we need to deliver justice in a fair and timely manner. Despite the pressures and the many unknowns in terms of numbers of appeals we could receive from day to day, I am pleased with the way the service works; we cope extremely well and the adjudicators are dedicated to making the service function properly."
What is it like for the appellants?
Statistics show that many people who are refused or discontinued support fail to exercise their right of appeal. There are a number of reasons for this, including legal aid restrictions, language and literacy difficulties and not having access to, or being wary of seeking help to understand the process. Sehba considers that those who do reach the appeal stage are very fortunate. But it is still a daunting experience and more so for those who attempt to complete the appeal forms on their own without any form of representation.
She says, "We try to give appellants as much help as possible. We have produced a video in several languages to assist them in understanding the ASA appeals process. Copies of the video are available from the ASA on request. There is also a freephone service for appellants to make contact with the ASA in matters concerning their appeal. We provide appellants with an interpreter in the language of their choice for use at the hearing and we also provide where requested, translated Reasons Statements in the appellant's language, provided that the decision is prejudicial to the appellant and they are unrepresented.
"But we have to accept that no matter how good our intentions, some of the people who appear before us have a mistrust of individuals in authority owing to the experiences that led them to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. Not surprisingly therefore, they are reluctant to discuss their personal details and circumstances with adjudicators. Where however they have access to an independent adviser, even for something as straightforward as assistance in completing the appeal form accurately, they are without doubt far better placed to discharge the burden upon them and are statistically more likely to achieve a successful outcome."
This is why the Asylum Support Appeals Project is so important. The project, which started in June 2004, is a free service offering support for unrepresented appellants. A number of solicitors and barristers give their time pro bono to the project one day a week. From autumn 2005, this will increase to two days due to the project recently securing lottery funding.
What about the future?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department has given his consent to an early transfer of the ASA to the DCA under the auspices of the new Tribunals Service. Sadly, the present indications are that this is unlikely to occur before April 2007.
On the work front, the ASA have already experienced a 100 per cent rise in workload since January 2005 and a further substantial rise in the coming weeks is expected. This will be an extremely challenging time for the ASA with competing demands on limited resources.
Sehba concludes, "It is often difficult to plan ahead as things change for us so quickly. Many of the challenges we face, fluctuating numbers of appeals, legislative and policy changes, timing of appeals etc. are inherent in the system. That is unlikely to change. On these matters however, I aim to work closely with Senior Directors of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and NASS as well as the Home Secretary in an attempt to gain maximum advance warning of possible changes. I am grateful for their assurances that resources will be made available to me occasioned by the increase in work, as and when required. Without this, the ASA could not hope to meet their targets. I do however love the challenge of my role and will continue with my juggling act, administering the service, managing adjudicators and attempting to ensure that our appellants receive the justice they deserve."
(October 2005)