Lord Chancellor amends guidance on fee remissions, but JCWI says fundamental concerns not addressed
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) on Friday published an update on its legal challenge against the recent five-fold increase in Immigration Tribunal fees.
Image credit: UK GovernmentAs we reported on EIN last month, JCWI is crowdfunding here to bring a judicial review claim in the High Court against the increase. The initial target of £5,000 has been reached and the campaign is now seeking donations to move towards its stretch target of £10,000 over the next 8 days.
JCWI announced on Friday that as a result of formal steps it took to launch its legal challenge against the fee increases, the Lord Chancellor has amended her guidance on fee remissions.
Specifically, JCW says the Lord Chancellor has:
1. Agreed to amend the wording of her guidance on remissions to remove words that wrongly suggested applicants for a fee remission would have to show that their case was 'unusual' in some respect;
2. Confirmed that the application of the Lord Chancellor's power to remit fees would not be discretionary: anyone who can show that they cannot realistically afford the fees must be granted a remission;
3. Stated that that it is the practice of HMCTS to allow a further 14 days for new evidence, if an application for fee remission is made with insufficient evidence.
In light of the Government's concession, JCWI says it has decided to undertake some further work before issuing legal proceedings.
JCWI says it will be offering pro bono advice to people affected by the fee increases and requests that anybody affected by the new measures and the remission guidance to contact them at policy@jcwi.org.uk as a matter of urgency.
While JCWI welcomed the changes to the remission guidance, it says they do not address the fundamental concerns over the huge increase in Tribunal fees.
"We do not believe that it will compensate for the huge injustice that we think will inevitably be caused by the fee increases. We are concerned that the scheme, which is to be administered by court officials, with an appeal to their supervisors, will not always get it right, and there will be no independent or judicial scrutiny of decisions. The guidance is still vague and open to a wide range of interpretations and it is very likely that what court staff view as realistically affordable will leave many at best struggling to scrape together the money for an appeal and at worst, simply unable to access the court at all," JCWI stated.
"It is not right that those seeking a fair and independent hearing on life-changing issues, should be forced to bear the full cost of challenging Home Office decisions," JCWI's update added.