×
×
×

Former asylum judge warns against replacing legal experts with lay adjudicators

A former immigration judge has raised concerns over government plans to replace legally qualified judges with trained members of the public in asylum appeals, warning that the move could lead to a "Wild West" of inconsistent and potentially biased decisions.

Robin Callender Smith, who served as a part-time immigration and asylum judge from 2006 to 2017, said the role carries immense responsibility because getting a decision wrong could mean "sending people back to their deaths." He cautioned that replacing judges with independent adjudicators who lack legal qualifications risks undermining the fairness and accuracy of the system.

Backlog and government reform plans

The backlog of appeals due to be heard by judges has risen by 70 percent in the last year, reaching a record high of 114,000 people who often wait an average of more than 15 months for a decision. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has described the tribunal as "overwhelmed" by people "gaming the system, lodging vexatious appeals."

Under the Immigration and Asylum Bill, a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority would be established, with lay adjudicators trained similarly to magistrates. The Home Office says this would "expand the range of suitable candidates while maintaining fairness" to process cases more quickly.

Judges warn of risks

Callender Smith, a former barrister, said the Home Office's initial decisions are made by caseworkers who do not need law qualifications, and he worries these officials are under pressure to rush through cases, potentially missing important evidence. He described the Home Office as "a place of great darkness" that "wants to say no all the time – it doesn't matter if that's a Labour no or a Conservative no."

He emphasized that judges currently must be qualified lawyers with at least five years of legal experience, and removing that "legal spine" could lead to decisions influenced by personal political views rather than law and facts.

Paul Housego, who served as an immigration judge for a decade until 2024, said it is "nonsense" to expect people without legal qualifications and experience "to do what a skilled, experienced judge does." He noted that case bundles are huge, requiring judges to quickly pull out key information, spot gaps, assess inconsistencies, and write appeal-proof decisions.

Challenges in assessing credibility

Callender Smith explained that judging asylum claims is particularly difficult because people who have genuinely escaped dangerous situations often have thin evidence. He recalled cases where appellants told judges: "Have a look at the scars on my back and you'll see that I've been burned."

He also highlighted the complexity of sexuality-based claims, which account for only 2 percent of asylum cases but can be among the trickiest. He described one case where two men claimed to be gay with photos that seemed to show a long-term relationship, but a detail in the photograph revealed inconsistencies in their story, leading him to refuse the appeal.

In another "extraordinary" hearing, an Iranian man claimed to be gay and was backed by his wife, who had married him to protect him from persecution. An independent childhood friend confirmed their story, leading Callender Smith to believe they were telling the truth, despite the Home Office accusing them of lying.

Criticism of Home Office decisions

Housego said the number of appeals would fall if the Home Office made "better decisions in the first place." In more than a third of appeal cases, the department reverses its decisions before they reach a tribunal hearing, and asylum seekers still win 40 percent of the remaining cases that go before judges.

The Law Society has strongly opposed the reforms, stating they "would damage our right to a fair hearing." Baroness Butler-Sloss, a former Court of Appeal judge, has also questioned whether the training for lay adjudicators would be sufficient. Callender Smith suggested that older judges should not be forced to retire at 70 and could help filter out cases before they reach tribunals to reduce the backlog.


Source: AI & Channel

Former asylum judge warns against replacing legal experts with lay adjudicators Former asylum judge warns against replacing legal experts with lay adjudicators Reviewed by Admin on July 02, 2026 Rating: 5
Powered by Blogger.