Limited further details on new asylum and immigration appeal system emerge

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has disclosed some further details on the new immigration and asylum appeal body. The plans are contained in a letter to the chair of the Justice Committee. Some further hints at the process behind the scenes separately emerged in live questions to Sarah Sackman, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services.

The first point to make here is that plans to scrap the existing asylum appeal system were trailed in the summer then formally announced on 17 November 2025 with no prior consultation. The judiciary were only informed 24 hours beforehand. Since then, we have heard nothing about details, timescales, transitional arrangements or whether the new system will apply to immigration appeals as well as asylum appeals. Even now, the “details” that are emerging are very much outline principles.

The second point to make is that not only is the policy process is being led by the Home Office but the Ministry of Justice seems to have very little to do with these plans at all. Have a watch of Sarah Sackman’s brief evidence on this:

Sackman does not appear to be substantively engaged with the project. She speaks of her department “supporting” the Home Office with the project and the MOJ’s role being limited to “managing the transition”. It does not sound as if the new body would even sit within the Ministry of Justice. Will we be returning to the days prior to 1987 when the Home Office appointed adjudicators? How is that “independent” from the Home Office?

Mahmood’s letter suggests that the main purpose of the change is to widen the recruitment pool for appeal decision-makers. She implies there are too few people who meet current minimum recruitment standards who are willing to do the existing job of immigration judge. Essentially any barrister or solicitor with five years of experience is potentially eligible. That’s well over 200,000 people. And a person with equivalent experience in law is also eligible. Rather than seeking to improve pay, conditions or make more use of the ‘equivalent experience’ criterion, the government has decided to reduce the minimum qualifications required. We still do not know what the new minimum will be.

There will still be a right of appeal from the new body to the Upper Tribunal on an error of law, apparently. Some had wondered whether this would be so. Given the minimum qualifications for adjudicators will be widened from actual practicing lawyers to, by definition, non legally qualified individuals, it seems likely there will be more appeals to the Upper Tribunal than at present. That’s not a great way of speeding things up.

The letter confirms that immigration appeals as well as asylum appeals will be heard by this new body. Given that the appeals legislation will need changing, this perhaps (I’m looking for silver linings here) raises the possibility of restoring the “not in accordance with the law, including immigration rules” ground of appeal in place of the “human rights only” grounds introduced in 2014. But I’m not holding my breath.

There is reference in the letter to legal advice being facilitated before a claim is heard by the new body. There’s no equivalent reference to legal representation being funded for appeals at the new body. That’s concerning.

There is some language around making appeals one stop shops, albeit without using those exact words (™Jack Straw 1998). Over the last 30 years we have repeatedly heard politicians claiming to want one appeal to rule them all. Their civil servants have then repeatedly introduced systems that require separate claims to be brought consecutively. Adding issues to an existing appeal is considered by the Home Office to be an ambush, basically.

What would all help with getting all relevant issues decided at a single appeal is making the process fair and quick. Around three months for an initial decision, say, and then three to six months for an appeal. Instead, we’re going to have a load of ill-considered institutional upheaval taking years.

There will be a fast track for claims from safe countries. This is not referred to as a detained fast track, but one imagines it might involve detention. Some other cases will be prioritised by the new “independent” body on public interest grounds. These grounds will presumably be decided by one of the parties to the appeal (the Home Office) but not the other. Late claims made prior to removal would appear to be one such category, according to Mahmood.

The letter does say that the system will preserve “safeguarding for vulnerable individuals, ensuring complex protection claims receive the time and scrutiny required”.

My main thought is that this seems like a colossal waste of time and energy. All of this could potentially be accomplished within the existing system. Improvements to initial decision-making and early access to legal advice would reduce the pressure on the tribunal system. Instead, the government is looking at very complex, costly and protracted procedural changes which may well end up having no impact on the existing tribunal backlog, because existing appeals continue in the existing system. It’s a classic Home Office response to a genuine problem. Instead of doing the admittedly hard work needed to resolve genuine problems, tear it all up to create more work — which is an opportunity cost for doing other more purposeful and impactful work — and still having to solve the same difficult problems anyway.