Public Law Solicitors

The Detained Fast Track (DFT) has always been controversial from the legal advisors point of view: does it allow for sufficient advice and consultation with the client, and thorough consideration and collation of evidence in light of the serious nature of the application: the request by the asylum seeker for international protection for example. DFT was subject to consideration by John Vine as Independent Chief Inspector of UK Border Agency, whose report was published in February 2012, as well as numerous other bodies.

One wonders if the UK Border Agency’s aim is to place as many asylum seekers into DFT in order to process their claims quickly and meet targets, at the expense of the asylum seekers themselves: the potential cost to an incorrectly decided asylum claim is arguably too great.

There are a number of policies which govern the DFT, including those prepared by the UKBA themselves. The clear objective of such policies is to ensure fairness to the asylum seeker; after all, asylum seekers have fled their own country in fear of persecution. They are therefore vulnerable in a multitude of ways: language, past experiences, different cultural practices, being detained which could reignite previous traumatic memories, as well as being isolated from those who care for them, such as families.

The “Detained Fast Track Processes” clearly sets out the steps to be followed, however all to often in my experience, these steps and policies are not being adhered to, leading to cases clearly not suitable for DFT continuing to be processed in DFT, as well as asylum seekers, not being given the opportunity to put forward their case as strongly as they may without such tight time restraints.



One of the most important requirements of the policy, which in my experience is often not complied with, is the requirement of the UKBA to ascertain the evidence the asylum seeker wishes to rely upon, which is clearly set out at Part 3 of DFT Processes. In my opinion, this question is particularly pertinent, as it would clearly establish whether the case is indeed suitable for DFT. If there is a significant amount of evidence available, and/ or it will take 2 weeks to obtain, surely the asylum seeker should be afforded the opportunity to obtain that evidence and then rely on it, the case would potentially not be suitable for DFT as it cannot be decided within the DFT timescale, and it is accepted that it is for the asylum seeker to ‘prove their case’, they should therefore be given every opportunity to do so.

Their failure to ask this simple yet vital question, leads me to ask, upon what basis are the UKBA allocating cases to DFT. Is it the brief details of the claim asserted at the screening interview, the country the asylum seeker is from, or something else? Whatever the reason, it would seem to me, impossible to accurately assess the suitability of an asylum claim for DFT without the question of the evidence to be relied upon being asked, as the decision is being made on incomplete information. This failure is made even more acute by the UKBA’s reluctance to remove cases from the DFT once allocated.

What can we do to redress this potential unfairness?

1. It is important to raise with the UKBA at interview stage (if not before) their failure to ask the relevant questions as per their own policies, and indeed draw their attention to the specific points, so that it is on record.
2. 
   
3. Ask the UKBA to provide an explanation of how they reached the conclusion that the case was suitable for DFT: they are a public body and should be accountable.


4. Don’t be afraid to apply for cases to be taken out of DFT: If in your opinion it is not suitable, make an application for the case to be transferred out of DFT, and set out the reasons why it is not suitable, e.g. expert report required, referring the UKBA to their own policies in order to show that it is not suitable within their criteria.


5. Consider whether it is necessary and appropriate to lodge a Judicial Review at the High Court to challenge the unlawfulness of the Secretary of State/ UKBA actions.


6. Remember the asylum seeker is unlikely to have much knowledge of immigration and asylum law in the UK: they need practitioners and other interested parties to look after their interests and fight their corner, as the system is likely to try and silence them in order to achieve the targets set down by the UKBA.




Author – Adam Tear is Director and Solicitor Advocate with Legal 500 and Chambers UK 2013 Law Firm – Duncan Lewis.