Senior Judge slams ‘Without merit’ immigration appeals
The President of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court has warned immigration solicitors who lodge last-minute groundless applications to prevent removals will be named and shamed and have their senior partners summoned before the court.
Sir John Thomas said the administrative court faced an ‘ever-increasing large volume’ of such applications, often filed on the day of removal and without adhering to the appropriate procedure.
He went on to state that ‘late meritless’ applications are an ‘intolerable waste of public money’ that put ‘great strain’ on the court’s resources and were an ‘abuse of the services’ of the court. ‘Many of these cases are totally without merit. The suggestion being made was that in many cases applications are left to the last minute by some solicitors in the hope that it will result in a deferral of the removal.
Thomas warned that the court would take the ‘most vigorous action’ against lawyers who pursue them, in his judgment in the case of Hamid v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The case concerned a Bangladeshi student who had been notified that he was an overstayer and served with removal directions. His solicitors made two applications to postpone removal the day before he was due to be deported after a previous application had already been rejected. The application was dismissed beforehand by a High Court judge as being ‘totally without merit’. Some parts of the court form had not been completed by the claimants solicitors and this led Sir John Thomas to make these remarks.
Sir John stated that ‘Non-compliance cannot be allowed to continue’.
Sir Thomas warned: ‘The court therefore intends to take the most vigorous action against any legal representatives who fail to comply with its rules. If people persist in failing to follow the procedural requirements, they must realise that this court will not hesitate to refer those concerned to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.’
The chair of the Law Society’s immigration committee Chris Cole defended solicitors stating that often solicitors do not get cases until the last minute as clients initially go to regulated immigration advisers who are not solicitors and therefore cannot take judicial reviews once their representations to the UK Border Agency have been refused. ‘Therefore solicitors have no option but to apply for urgent interim relief’.
The case outlines the dangers for clients and claimants of taking legal advice from regulated immigration advisers such as those regulated by the OISC. These advisers often have limited legal qualifications and are trained only to assist clients in the most basic immigration matters and appeals. Often cases involve far more far-reaching legal issues which can only be identified and acted upon by solicitors who have the experience, training and tools to deal with tough legal issues. Sadly though, most applicants are not aware of the difference between regulated OISC advisers and solicitors who are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Cole said: ‘It is a real concern that genuine and meritorious cases may not be pursued because of a solicitor’s fear of being named and shamed by administrative court judges’.
The full judgment can be read here.
Mansouri & Son Solicitors is a firm of solicitors regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. As such we are able to advise in all aspects of UK immigration law and policy and pursue applications on behalf of our clients at all levels.