New 255-page report documents how legal aid crisis leaves increasing numbers of people without access to representation
In her latest, hugely comprehensive report published last week by Justice Together, Dr Jo Wilding of the University of Sussex continues to chronicle the serious and deepening shortage of legal aid providers for immigration and asylum cases across the UK.
The 255-page report, No Access to Justice 2 Mapping the UK's continuing immigration and asylum legal advice crisis, can be downloaded here. It updates the first No Access to Justice report published in 2022 by Refugee Action.
Justice Together noted that Jo Wilding's new report provides vital insight and data on what is actually happening across the UK with immigration advice provision and need, broken down by country and region.
The report documents how legal aid availability has failed to keep pace with both growing need and shifting patterns of asylum dispersal, leaving increasing numbers of people without access to representation at critical stages of their immigration or asylum journey. In addition, problems around the recruitment and retention of staff now present an 'existential threat' to the immigration and asylum legal aid sector.
In England and Wales, legal aid now meets only 43% of the demand for asylum-related advice, a steep drop from the 83% coverage reported in 2022. Even London – the UK's stronghold for immigration legal services –shifted from a modest legal aid surplus in 2022 to a deficit by 2024. Although it retains the highest number of provider offices, overwhelming demand is driven in part by the city accommodating nearly a quarter of all individuals in asylum support.
Jo Wilding noted: "If even London, with its comparatively large network of advice, casework and legal aid providers, has such a volume of unmet legal need, it becomes very clear that the current approach is not working – neither in terms of legal aid funding and administration, the limits to legal aid scope, nor the amount of legal need which the immigration and asylum system generates through its complexity and restrictiveness."
The North East and South West of England are among the worst-affected areas. Northumberland, for example, hosts hundreds of asylum seekers yet has no access to legal aid or non-legal aid advice services. In the South West, the collapse of legal aid services in has effectively rendered the entire region an advice desert.
Wales presents one of the most dramatic declines, with just six legal aid offices remaining across the entire country by March 2025. Appeals provision has collapsed, and the few organisations still operating note that while they can lodge appeals to prevent immediate harm, finding solicitors to argue those appeals is near impossible.
In Northern Ireland, legal aid for asylum appeals is in crisis, with a growing gap in provision at a time of rising need due to policy changes that have brought more asylum seekers into the region. Meanwhile, Scotland avoids the worst of the numerical shortages, but nearly all service provision remains concentrated in Glasgow, leaving vast parts of the country underserved.
Overall, Wilding found that problems identified in her earlier 2022 report have largely intensified, especially around recruiting and retaining staff. She highlights that staffing issues are now an 'existential threat' to the sector: "The crisis in recruitment and retention continues and worsens, with organisations obtaining legal aid contracts in 2023 and 2024 and then finding themselves unable to recruit staff, especially at supervisor level. The same applies outside legal aid though the supervisory requirement outside legal aid are less exacting, and I am aware of organisations which have had to suspend their services because of the loss of a supervisor. I have not repeated this theme for each individual region, as I did in the first report, but it is no exaggeration to say that it presents an existential threat to immigration and asylum organisations across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, within and outside legal aid, while Scottish lawyers report losing newly-trained staff to government departments which can offer better salaries and other benefits (like pensions)."
While some argue that remote legal advice could help plug gaps in provision, the report warns that this is no panacea. Remote models tend to exclude complex or urgent cases, such as appeals or modern slavery challenges, where face-to-face advice is often critical. Instead, remote provision is increasingly being used to cherry-pick straightforward cases, leaving the most vulnerable clients without help.
Amid the widespread shortfalls and systemic strain, the report does highlight one rare improvement: "One of the few positive changes to the England and Wales legal aid scheme since the last report has been the amendment to the escape fee threshold. At the time of 'No Access to Justice', a provider had to do three times the amount of work paid for on the fixed fee in order to 'escape' the fixed fee and receive hourly rates. That meant financial losses on a case could be very nearly double the actual payment received, even if the Legal Agency approved, retrospectively, the full amount of time spent. That threshold has been reduced to double the fixed fee. That still means providers stand to lose almost as much as they are paid, but potentially reduces the losses."
Wide-ranging recommendations are set out in the report, with Justice Together noting that they include ensuring early access to legal advice in the immigration system, creating a streamlined asylum process, abolishing the ten-year route and reviewing the audit process for legal aid.
To address the sector's deepening staffing crisis, the report calls on the Legal Aid Agency and Ministry of Justice to fund high-quality providers to act as legal practice academies, with full coverage of training and supervision costs. These academies should draw on proven models such as the former Refugee and Migrant Justice and Immigration Advisory Service schemes and build on initiatives like the Justice First Fellowship. Importantly, this investment must recognise that training new practitioners cannot rely solely on philanthropic support but requires sustainable, long-term funding to maintain a steady pipeline of qualified advisers.