Last month, courts and justice minister Sir Oliver Heald QC announced (in written statement HCWS284/HLWS287) a government rethink on large fee increases for immigration and asylum appeals. From 25 November 2016, the fees charged for the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals reverted back to the levels at which they were set prior to the increases that were applied on 10 October 2016. Fees in some cases had increased by over 500 per cent from that date; for example, the cost of making an application for an oral hearing had leapt from £140 to £800.

The hike in fees had attracted widespread condemnation from organisations representing both lawyers and migrants. Over 140 responses to the government’s consultation on the fee increases had opposed them (see October 2016 Legal Action 4). In his statement announcing the changes, Heald said: ‘[W]e have listened to the representations that we received on the current fee levels and have decided to take stock and review the immigration and asylum fees …’

According to Heald, people who have paid the increased fees will be entitled to a refund. The government is also extending fee exemptions and a new consultation on immigration tribunal fees will commence ‘in due course’.

The government’s decision was welcomed by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA). Alison Harvey, legal director at ILPA, said the organisation was ‘pleased that the government had decided to take stock’ and reconsider the fee increases. She added that ILPA ‘remains concerned that fees are imposed at all on persons with no right to work and no access to funds’, as this denies them access to justice or forces them into ‘exploitative and dangerous work to meet fees’.

Immigration cases were removed from the scope of legal aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and Harvey pointed out that this ‘presents a barrier to justice that is insurmountable for too many’. She also believes that the ‘quality of Home Office decision-making remains poor and individuals struggle to challenge this. Those who get to appeal have around a 40 per cent chance of success, with success rates very much higher in some categories’.