Friday, 30 April 2010

Almost 80 per cent of asylum seekers wrongly refused legal representation at appeal

Almost 80 per cent of asylum seekers wrongly refused legal representation at appeal

A ground-breaking project at Devon Law Centre has found that asylum seekers are being wrongly refused publicly-funded legal representation for their asylum appeals in 79 per cent of cases, and that at least 30 per cent of these people have a legitimate claim to some form of protection.

Thursday 1 April 2010: The project’s final report warns that recent reforms to legal aid have made it harder for asylum seekers to get a fair hearing. The report includes several compelling case studies in which people were only recognised as refugees after the project had secured representation for them at appeal.

In one case, a Chinese woman who had been detained and tortured for her trade union activities was refused asylum at her first appeal where she was unrepresented, but was granted a second appeal, which she won, after the project obtained legal representation for her.

Since June 2007, the project has been referred 75 asylum seekers refused Controlled Legal Representation on the grounds that their cases had insufficient merit. Devon Law Centre appealed against those refusals to an Independent Funding Adjudicator in every case. 59 of those appeals were allowed.

Jean-Benoit Louveaux, the asylum appellate lawyer who runs the project, said:

“Asylum seekers come to the UK fleeing persecution such as torture, rape, indefinite imprisonment without trial, and extra-judicial execution. It is a damning indictment of the UK that those seeking sanctuary here are then denied a fair hearing.

The project has shown that recent reforms to legal aid have made it much harder for asylum seekers with a valid claim to prove their case.

If the project’s results were repeated across the country, it would mean that asylum seekers are being wrongly refused publicly-funded legal representation for their appeals in almost four out of every five cases - and that a significant number of these people have a legitimate claim to some form of protection. It is time we acknowledge that asylum seekers do not represent a large wave of illegal immigration but a small persecuted minority which the UK government has abandoned.”

Read the report: Asylum_Appellate_Project_Final_Report.doc

Monday, 26 April 2010

Equality Act 2010 – IDS Brief feature article available for free

IDS Employment Law Brief has published an extensive, in-depth analysis of the Equality Act 2010.

The feature article, ‘Equality Act 2010 – the future of fairness?’, reviews the main changes that the Act will introduce to discrimination and equal pay law.

It draws attention to new pitfalls for employers and highlights the measures that will depend on the result of the General Election.

The article, which will appear in the next edition of IDS Brief, is now freely available to subscribers and non-subscribers alike.

The article also highlights the extent to which the Act’s impact is still unknown. Section 1, for example, introduces a new duty on public bodies to address socio-economic inequality arising from social class or family background.

This could leave public bodies open to judicial review proceedings for failure to consider the duty when recruiting.

There are also important changes to the territorial scope of discrimination law.

Currently, those who work ‘wholly or partly’ in Great Britain are protected, subject to certain criteria, as are some employees who work wholly outside Great Britain.

The Equality Act is silent as to its territorial scope, leaving it open to a narrower interpretation by judges. The feature article is available free to help lawyers, HR professionals, trade unionists, public bodies and employees prepare for the changes contained in the Act’s 251 pages.

Subscribers will receive a comprehensive IDS Employment Law Guide to the Equality Act 2010, taking into account the position of the next Government, later this year.Feel free to circulate this article to all who may find it useful.

Click here to view the article.Click here for more information on IDS Employment Law Brief.

Sunday, 14 March 2010

South Asian 'slave brides' causing concern in UK


By Rahila Bano
BBC Asian Network

Woman with head in hands
Research has found victims believe it is difficult to report abuse

Hundreds of women who came to the UK from South Asia to marry say they have been treated as domestic slaves by their in-laws, the BBC has learned.

More than 500 who applied for residence in 2008-09 after their marriages broke down were deported because they could not prove any abuse had taken place.

Police and charities are concerned the incidents are not reported because of family pressure and fear of reprisals.

The UK Border Agency said measures were in place to try to prevent such abuse.

'Bloodied nose'

The women complaining of being treated as slaves by their families come from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

One woman in her 20s, says she was imprisoned by her mother-in-law for three years at their house in the north of England. She does not want to be named.

She has now started to come to terms with her ordeal, a year after her mother-in-law was prosecuted, but she says she still lives with the fear inside her.

"One day my mother-in-law beat me up really badly," she says.

"There was a lot of blood coming out of my mouth and nose - I couldn't tell anyone, call anyone or go anywhere.

"I used to get up at dawn and clean the whole house, scrub the floors, clean the windows, do the washing, cook. In between I'd have to sew."

She tried to kill herself twice. Eventually she managed to escape after her mother-in-law left her bedroom door unlocked.

"Staying inside all the time, not being allowed to watch TV or go out... I thought I'd rather be dead than live like this."

Marai Larasi of Imkaan
Marai Larasi says there is a lack of services for women

Research by Imkaan, the national charity for Black and Asian victims of domestic violence, shows how difficult it is for other Asian women to report abuse. It surveyed 124 women who use Asian refuges across the country.

"A woman may not speak English, may not be aware of what's available in terms of services, she may be in a situation where everywhere she goes her abuser or a family member - who may be colluding in the abuse - is actually going with her," says Imkaan director Marai Larasi.

"So her opportunity to disclose the abuse is compromised. There's also a real lack of services for women in this position."

There are concerns that this lack of reporting is leading many abused women from South Asia to eventually be deported when their marriages break down and they apply to stay in the UK.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEAVE TO REMAIN APPLICATIONS 2008/9
Pakistani: 240
Bangladeshi: 100
Indian: 100
Source: Home Office

Home Office rules state that any foreign national whose marriage breaks up within two years because of domestic violence can apply for indefinite leave to remain, but they must have reported the incident at the time to a person in authority - such as a GP or police officer.

Figures released by the Home Office show that more than half the number of South Asian brides who say they have been victims of domestic abuse in the UK have been deported in the last two years because they could not prove abuse had taken place.

Out of 980 applications for leave to remain in the UK in 2008 and 2009, only 440 women were allowed to stay.

In a statement, the UK Border Agency said: "We take our role in providing protection to women very seriously. We already have a number of measures in place to try and provide more directed support such as specific instructions, assessment of the quality of decisions and training for case workers."

After the highly-publicised case of Naseebah Bibi last year, Lancashire Police say they believe the problem is widespread in some communities.

Bibi was jailed for treating her three daughters-in-law as slaves at their home in Blackburn.

"The women are facing pressure, not only from immediate family but also their extended family abroad who may be relying on the people in this country to finance them to help improve their lives," says Lancashire Police's Det Con Dave Souch, who led the Naseebah Bibi Inquiry.

His colleague Sgt John Rigby described it as the "Cinderella syndrome".

He adds: "The problem with slave labour, as it's been tagged, is probably far bigger than what we may expect - we can only go on the cases that are brought to our attention.

Sgt John Rigby
Sgt John Rigby says the problem is widespread

"But we know from the partner agencies we work alongside - like the Women's Aid Forums - who can tell you it's widespread."

Another woman, also in her 20s, was forced to flee her in-laws with her child. She was also too scared to reveal her identity.

She explained: "If I made tea, it was for her or someone else. I didn't have permission to drink tea with them because in the 15-20 minutes it would take, housework would not get done.

"She would swear at my family, and accuse me of taking things. If any money or jewellery had been misplaced I would get the blame."

She, too, was not allowed to speak to anyone outside of the family and was not allowed to go out by herself.

"Even a servant is allowed to have a break, but I was used like a machine," she recalls.

"The worst thing about it was that my husband wasn't there for me. I'd have done everything for him without complaining - but he didn't care about me or his baby."

She managed to escape after a year-and-a-half. She was rescued by her midwife, who alerted the authorities.

'Small proportion'

Parveen Javaid, domestic violence co-ordinator at Manchester-based Pakistani Resource Centre, said: "On average we deal with 20 to 30 cases a month where we give advice and support to women who are victims of mothers-in-law.

"The majority of cases I deal with are women who've been kept as slaves - abuse within the house."

To put this into context, just over 37,000 women have come to the UK on spousal visas in the last five years and while domestic violence workers say most of these marriages are genuine and successful, a small proportion of those marriages do fail.

What is clear is that this is still a hidden problem within South Asian communities.

It will remain so, unless women are encouraged to come forward and report it to the authorities.

Wednesday, 24 February 2010

Tower Hamlets Advice Organisations Social Policy Forum meeting - Agenda

Tower Hamlets Advice Organisations Social Policy Forum meeting

Thursday 11th March 2010 3pm

Agenda

Introductions and apologies.

Identifying and recording Social Policy issues – CAB presentation.

Review of current Social Policy work, including Money Advice, Housing and Welfare Benefits forums.

Discussion of areas where we could work together more effectively at both local and national level.

A.O.B

Date of next meeting.

Tower Hamlets Advice Agencies Social Policy Forum

Dear All,
I would like to confirm that the Tower Hamlets Advice agencies Social Policy forum will take place on Thursday 11th March at 3pm.
The venue is Account 3, 1 - 9 Birkbeck Street, London E2 6JY, which is very near Bethnal Green tube.
Please find attached the agenda and please let us know if you want to add anything. It would be very helpful if you could indicate how many people from your organisation will be attending.
I look forward to seeing you on the 11th March.
Regards
Jess Vivian
--
Adviser and Social Policy Coordinator
Tower Hamlets Citizens Advice Bureau
32 Greatorex Street
London E1 5NP
020 7247 1050

Sunday, 14 February 2010

Public Accounts Committee - Ninth Report

The procurement of legal aid in England and Wales by the Legal Services Commission

This report covers the Committee's examination of the procurement and administration of legal aid in England and Wales on the basis of two reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General: his report on the qualification of the accounts of the Legal Services Commission for 2008-09

We took evidence from witnesses from the Ministry of Justice (the Department) and the Legal Services Commission on the Commission's financial management and governance, on how criminal legal aid is delivered, and on the Commission's skills and capacity to manage change.

The Legal Services Commission—a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Ministry of Justice—spends £2.1 billion a year on buying civil and criminal legal aid, mainly from solicitors and barristers, and a further £125 million on administration.

The Commission has successfully arrested the increase in legal aid spending in the last five years, but we found it is an organisation with poor financial management and internal controls and deficient management information. These weaknesses resulted in the Commission having its annual accounts qualified for 2008-09 and an assessment that its procurement and administration of criminal legal aid posed risks to value for money.

The Committee was very concerned that such weaknesses in the Commission's performance had occurred when the Ministry of Justice spends over £2 million a year itself on legal aid policy matters and on overseeing the Commission. We found confusion and uncertainty about the respective roles of the two organisations which had led to duplication of effort on some issues and a lack of clarity about who should be responsible for others.

Because the Commission is the sole buyer of legal aid, it is important that it knows it is paying the right price for this and the effects its policies are having on the sustainability of providers. But it does not know enough about the costs and profitability of firms to know if it has set its fees at an appropriate level. Moreover, there are gaps in the arrangements to assure the quality of criminal legal aid procured which make it harder to assess whether the services delivered represent good value for money.

The Commission considered the introduction of tendering would remove the imperative for it to know the market, because prices would be set by competition. The recently announced abandonment of its plans to introduce its tendering proposals following representations from the legal profession leaves the Commission not able to assess if it is paying a reasonable price for legal aid.

In particular, significant expenditure is incurred on the largest cases that take place primarily in the Crown Court and a small number of barristers are earning substantial fees from such cases. Despite playing a more active role in managing these cases, the Commission has not done the analysis to determine if its current approach is cost effective.

The Commission has been responsible for implementing significant reforms to legal aid, which were recommended by Lord Carter of Coles in 2006. However, constant changes in staff at senior level—which have been costly and disruptive—and poor planning of the changes has meant that reforms have often been delayed, have not always kept to their timetable and have not been properly evaluated to assess their impact.


see full report at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubacc/322/32202.htm

Wednesday, 10 February 2010

Bar Council to launch legal action against MoJ

Monday 08 February 2010 by Catherine Baksi

The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association are set to take the government to court for the first time in 20 years over what they claim are ‘inadequate and unfair’ consultations on new fees for criminal legal aid work.

They have instructed solicitors to take the first step towards a judicial review of the consultations published respectively by the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Commission on advocates’ graduated fees and very high cost (criminal) cases.

The bar’s principal basis for the claim is that the consultation exercise is ‘inadequate and unfair’.

In a press release issued today the Bar Council said its decision to proceed had ‘not been taken lightly’ and it had been more than 20 years since it last instituted proceedings against the government.

It said the Bar Council had consistently put forward proposals designed to safeguard and promote the administration of justice, without seeking recourse to legal action, and had requested a change of approach from the MoJ and LSC.

The Bar Council said the conduct of the consultation process – with two separate papers on issues that are ‘inextricably linked’ and a third unpublished paper on the introduction of a single graduated fee – was so flawed that judicial review is the only option.

Bar chairman Nicholas Green QC said: ‘The Bar Council has thought long and hard about this decision but the process of consultation on these proposals, frankly, has been disjointed and chaotic.’

‘Our decision to take the first step towards bringing proceedings for judicial review has been taken after very careful consideration of the options available to us.’

‘We asked the MoJ and the LSC to adopt a co-ordinated and fair approach to decision-making. But the government has refused to alter its present consultation process and did not even respond to our request for relevant data,’ said Green.

CBA chairman Paul Mendelle QC said: ‘Our concern is not simply about fee levels or the interests of the profession – it is about the need to ensure that the justice system functions well, and that criminal trials are carried out effectively and in the public interest.’

‘These consultations affect the future of the criminal justice system including some of the most lengthy and complex criminal cases. The government is undermining the system it claims to protect; we cannot stand by and let this happen,’ he added.

An MoJ spokesman said: ‘The MoJ and the LSC received a letter from the Bar Council and CBA on 21 January requesting the deadlines for our current consultations on advocates’ graduated fees and very high cost cases be extended.

‘We consider that the current deadlines give adequate time for stakeholders to respond properly and fully to both consultations. We hope the Bar Council and CBA will reconsider their position.

‘The proposals to pilot a single graduated fee will be consulted on in due course.’