Asylum & Immigration Tribunal (Procedures) (Amendment) Rules 2006

A list of Questions

September 2006

We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in the consultation paper The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2006. You can extend the boxes in this table as required. Please email your completed form to ait.rules.consultation@dca.gsi.gov.uk or post to:

Rachel Haynes, Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, PO Box 6987, Leicester LE1 6ZX.

Question 1: What are your views on the change to the heading of Rule 9?

Comments: To be welcomed

Question 2: How do you view the proposal for the Tribunal to give reasons, which may be in summary form, when deciding issues relating to out of time appeals?

Comments: Again, to be welcomed.  However, we would express some concern in relation  to the phrase “summary form” as this may be used as justification for inadequate reasoning.

Question 3: Do you agree that the Tribunal should determine appeals on the papers where the appellant is not in the UK and is without a UK-based representative or sponsor? If not, please give details.

Comments:   In principle this is acceptable, however, there should still be discretion maintained to allow for an oral hearing, where for example input from the Home Office Presenting Officer may help clarify the issues, in some case, in favour of the appellant.

Question 4: Do you support a time limit of ten days from receipt of the notice of appeal for the Tribunal to notify the appellant and respondent that the appeal will be determined without a hearing?

Comments:   This time limit is acceptable.  However procedure rules should include A provision to allow appellants to overturn the notification of a papers Hearing in exceptional circumstances.  For example if a mistake has been made in relation to representatives actually acting.       

Question 5: Do you agree that 28 days is sufficient for appellants to notify the Tribunal of an intention to pursue an appeal under the limited circumstances of section 9 of the IAN Act? If not, please explain briefly.

Comments: In agreement.

Question 6: What are your views on a time limit of 35 calendar days for hearing asylum appeals? How do you think this will ease listing pressures for practitioners and the Tribunal over holiday periods?

Comments: The increase in the time limit is to be welcomed.  However this a relatively small increase and in light of the time pressures on appellants, representatives and the tribunal, it would be more effective to extend this to 30 working days. 

Question 7: What is your view on our proposal to amend Rule 31? If you have any alternatives to our suggested amendment, please elaborate.

Comments: This is to be welcomed.

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed procedure for parties to notify the Tribunal of additional issues they wish to raise; in particular the time limit for serving this on the Tribunal and other party of ten days before the reconsideration hearing? Please provide reasons. 

Comments:    The time limit is too restrictive, particularly in the context of the already very tight timescale in asylum appeals.  A more realistic timetable would be one calendar week before the hearing with the other party being asked to respond within two working days of the hearing. 

Question 9: Are you satisfied that the amendment to Rule 33 sufficiently covers the Tribunal’s duties in relation to funding determinations? If not, please explain briefly.

Comments:    ----

Question 10: Do you support the provision for a notice of appeal signed by a representative to constitute notification to the Tribunal that the representative is acting? If not, please give brief details. 

Comments:  Yes.  However, this should not be the only form of notification of representation that may be accepted.    

Question 11: How do you view a change in the current provisions for deemed service between the UK and other countries? Would you favour a reduction to 21 or 14 days? Please briefly explain.

Comments:   We recognise that there have been significant delays in determining overseas appeals.  However, in our experience these delays are in no way attributable to appellants.  As such it seems inappropriate to effectively penalise appellants by reducing the deemed service  time.

Especially as in the consultation paper’s comment on modern postal regimes throughout the world does not reflect our experiences of many of them.

We believe the Tribunal should consider alternative measures that may reduce the delays in overseas appeals.  For example, by finding a more effective way of obtaining papers from the Embassies.

Question 12: How do you view our proposed provision enabling the President to be able to set aside decisions wrongly made as a result of administrative errors? Please give details.

Comments: This proposal is to be welcomed but it is always likely that a  administrative error would be apparent within 10 days, especially if the appellant is unrepresented.  As such we believe a more appropriate time limit would be 30 calendar days or at least 2 weeks.