Quality of initial decision-making
and representation by the Home Office at appeals
11. The issue of poor decision-making by the Home
Office has been raised in a number of the written submissions.
Typical comments on Home Office decision-making included:
"Poor quality decision making is prominent throughout
the system."[5]
"We are…convinced that reforms to improve
the efficiency of the appellate procedure will not be successful
unless they are accompanied by similar improvements to the initial
decision-making process…Good quality initial decision-making
would also reduce the number of appeals."[6]
"The problems of appeals begin with the initial
decision. The quality of decisions is very variable. Some decision
letters are very good, some are not. Standard word processed paragraphs
appear with regularity whether they are relevant to the facts
of the instant case or not…The standard of initial Home Office
decisions has undoubtedly improved in the last four years but
still has a long way to go. The quality of initial decisions by
Entry Clearance Officers in visit and other immigration cases
remains poor."[7]
"…a second tier appeal is essential in
view of the poor quality of Home Office decision-making at the
initial stage…The poor quality of initial decisions means
that the hearing carried out before a special adjudicator is often
the first proper factual assessment of the case. As a result,
the IAT appeal becomes the first appeal level. If the IAT second
tier appeal is removed, it is absolutely essential that improvements
to Home Office initial decision-making are made concurrently."[8]
12. In our report on the Government's Proposed
Changes to Publicly Funded Asylum and Immigration Work, we
stated that there was "also widespread concern about the
low level of Home Office representation at appeals—around
35%—which can result in unnecessary appeals to the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal."[9]
13. JUSTICE, in a memorandum sent to us, was strongly
critical of this, stating that at present the Home Office is not
in attendance at approximately 30% of first-tier cases because
it does not send a Presenting Officer to attend the hearing[10].
In evidence, Mr Justice Ouseley said that this figure could be
as high as 40% of first tier cases. JUSTICE claims that the absence
of proper Home Office representation in adversarial proceedings
inevitably places a greater strain on the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
It indicates that:
"Over 10% of applications for leave to appeal
are made by the Home Office itself against first tier decisions
allowing asylum or human rights claims. It is difficult to reconcile
this figure with the apparent view of the Home Office that only
first tier review is needed in order to reach the correct outcome".[11]
14. The Home Affairs Committee, in its report into
the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
also highlighted this problem, when it concluded that:
"The real flaw in the system appear to be at
the stage of initial decision-making, not that of appeal. We recommend
that the implementation of the new asylum appeals system should
be contingent on a significant improvement in initial decision
making having been demonstrated".[12]
15. There are significant flaws in Home Office practice
at the stage of initial decision making. This causes us great
concern, not only because of the proposed removal of a tier of
appeal contained in the new Asylum and Immigration (Treatment
of Claimants, etc.)Bill, but also in relation to any additional
restrictions placed upon the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts.
5 
