Concrete Walls and Bureaucratic Barriers to Access to Justice for Migrants

5 October 2016 by


calais-421331Work recently began on a wall in Calais, funded by the UK government, to prevent migrants and asylum seekers from crossing the Channel to Britain. Nearly simultaneously, the government announced that it would increase immigration tribunal fees by over 500%, erecting a different type of barrier—to access to justice. It was claimed that doing so would bring in an estimated £34 million in income annually and preserve the functioning of the tribunals.

The decision to increase fees was made despite the fact that responses to a public consultation conducted by the government overwhelmingly disagreed with the proposals. The suggestion to increase fees in the First-tier Tribunal (the first port of call when a person wants to challenge an immigration or asylum decision by the state) was opposed by 142 of 147 respondents. Introducing fees in the Upper Tribunal (where appeals against decisions in the First-tier Tribunal are heard) was opposed by 106 of 116 respondents, and the introduction of fees for applications for permission to appeal in both Tribunals was opposed by 111 of 119 respondents. In partial concession to critics of the proposal, the government has said it will introduce fee waiver and exemption schemes in certain cases. However, these plans are as yet unspecified and are likely to increase the bureaucratic burden on migrants.

The Government claims these changes are necessary to preserve access to justice and the continued functioning of the Tribunals, and feels that taxpayers should not bear this burden. However, this motive is questionable, especially in light of the recent joint statement by the Government and the judiciary outlining plans to invest over £970 million to transform our justice system and make it more accessible. These plans are aimed at ensuring that the justice system is straightforward and capable of use by every citizen. The Tribunals in particular are cited as “an essential component of the rule of law” because they empower citizens to hold the state to account. Together, the Joint Statement and the fee changes illustrate a problematic dichotomy.

On one hand, the Government seeks to ensure that our justice system is fit for purpose, and remains a model of access to justice for other nations. On the other, it plans to implement highly restrictive fee changes for one category of individuals—non-citizens—despite significant opposition. In The Rule of Law, Lord Bingham wrote that the “denial of legal protection to the poor litigant who cannot afford to pay is one enemy of the rule of law”. Indeed, the rule of law is not served where access to justice is barred by virtue of its cost. If the Government truly believes that tribunals are a fundamental part of the rule of law, then it should also believe in equal access to justice for all people. As underscored by the President of the Law Society, the proposed fee increases are “a huge setback for justice in the UK” that will deter people from appealing adverse decisions. This is especially worrying in view of evidence that appeal success rates in the First-tier Tribunal are 43% – 49%, depending on the type of appeal. These figures indicate that immigration and asylum decisions by the Home Office are frequently flawed. However, the fee increases mean that people will be less likely to challenge initial decisions, and that poor decisions will go unchecked and uncorrected.

Moreover, it is likely that the increase will result in unlawful discrimination and give the state even more power over people who are often vulnerable and afraid from the start. The decision to increase fees so drastically in the immigration and asylum tribunals arguably reflects a general anti-immigration sentiment here in the UK demonstrated recently in relation to the influx of refugees in Europe and the UK’s continued resistance against accepting more refugees. The UK has a history of implementing restrictive policies in the field of migration in times of perceived crisis. For example, following publication of a White Paper in 1998 ostensibly aimed at protecting the rights of immigrants and asylum-seekers, Parliament passed seven laws introducing 80 new immigration offences, and began automatically detaining asylum-seekers upon their arrival in the UK. This was in the wake of the Government’s perception that the state was being inundated by fraudulent asylum applications.

It is therefore difficult to accept the Government’s proffered justification for these fee increases, especially when one considers that the non-citizens are often at a financial disadvantage in comparison to citizen-users of other tribunals. If the UK wishes to remain a world leader in terms of its justice system, it should seek to ensure that access to justice remains a viable option for all people, regardless of their origin or financial position.

Justine Stefanelli is research fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, working on European law issues with a focus on migration.



  1. […] via Concrete Walls and Bureaucratic Barriers to Access to Justice for Migrants — UK Human Rights Blog […]

  2. John Phillips says:

    The fact that it may prevent people appealing is a feature not a bug to this government, especially if nearly 50% win on first tier appeals. After all, we can’t have foreigners highlighting how unjust our system is by so many winning appeals. If they can’t afford to appeal, under the government’s logic, their decision to kick them out was justified and only those who can afford to appeal should be considered worthy, maybe. Pretty much par for the course with this government, i.e. you only count if you have plenty of money, which also applies to actual British citizens as well, i.e. look at legal aid or what’s left of it.

  3. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  4. truthaholics says:

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “It is therefore difficult to accept the Government’s proffered justification for these fee increases, especially when one considers that the non-citizens are often at a financial disadvantage in comparison to citizen-users of other tribunals. If the UK wishes to remain a world leader in terms of its justice system, it should seek to ensure that access to justice remains a viable option for all people, regardless of their origin or financial position.”

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: