Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

So long AIT and thanks for…?


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

It very much looks like the AIT is about to be scrapped and merged into the new unified Tribunals Service. This is something I posted on way back in September and it now looks very likely to happen.

The new system applies to all tribunal work except immigration and asylum. All of the tax, mental health, employment, social security, land and other tribunals have been combined into one structure. There is a horizontal division between the lower tribunal and the upper tier and there are also vertical divisions by specialisation, called chambers. Judicial reviews can be transferred into and out of the upper tier. Apart, that is, from immigration and asylum judicial reviews, for which there is a statutory bar to transfers. The government is currently proposing lifting that bar, and the issue has been and will be again debated in the House of Lords.

The entrails cast in the air (or settling tea leaves if you prefer) are a recent letter from the Lord Chief Justice complaining about the volume of immigration and asylum cases in the Administrative Court and proposing to shift all fresh claim judicial reviews and other JRs at the judge’s discretion into the new Upper Tier of the general tribunal. That doesn’t seem likely if immigration and asylum cases have not already been brought into it. The Government is very keen to lift the statutory bar. This is presumably for a reason: so that immigration and asylum JRs can indeed be transferred into the tribunal. An AIT stakeholder meeting was recently postponed pending an announcement on the future of the AIT.

That’s good enough for me and I am now certain that the AIT is on the way out.

The current immigration appeal system is a dog’s dinner, and transferring it into the new tribunal system would surely be neater. There would probably be new immigration chambers set up in the lower and upper bits, but one might hope that there could be something of a culture change if immigration ‘judges’ came into regular contact with other tribunal adjudicators and perhaps even sat on non immigration cases. There has also been an assurance that procedure rules for immigration and asylum cases would be made in the same way as other procedure rules, thereby perhaps ending the privileged access the Home Office has exploited in previous years.

Lots of new procedures and rules to learn all over again, the whole caboodle being turned upside down again Рbut perhaps these changes will stick this time. Good or bad, though, it now looks inevitable.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Free Movement

Free Movement

The Free Movement blog was founded in 2007 by Colin Yeo, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers specialising in immigration law. The blog provides updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law by a variety of authors.


7 Responses

  1. It may be neater, but the big problem here is that by bringing it within the scope of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, you open up the power of the Lord Chancellor to make an order under Section 13(6) of it. (UKBA were very coy about whether they would employ this power or not in their appeals consultation) S.13(6)allows for a far more restrictive test for securing leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. This arguably has significant and highly unsatisfactory implications for the UK’s compliance with its international obligations. This matter is something that JCWI has taken up. It will be debated in the House of Lords this Wednesday (01.04.09). It is also something that pages 10-11 of the JCHR report on the Bill deals with. That is available from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/62/62.pdf

    1. I agree entirely, HM, and I’m aware of the good work JCWI has been doing in sourcing significant legal opinion on this question. The Lord Chancellor is almost bound to use s.13(6), I’d guess. The effect would be that if one loses in the new tribunal and can show a material error of law was committed (i.e. one that might have affected the outcome) one would nevertheless be stuck with that result unless one could show a public interest in the outcome of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. As bad as that would be (very bad) it would affect few people. Those that it does affect, though, could lose their lives or livelihoods. Not good news, and there will no doubt be a significant campaign on this point.

  2. Reading from the new president profile and other comments, it seems that the appointement of Blake good be a good news for Appellant.