A FREEDOM of Information (FOI) request by The National has revealed that in the past year UK Government lawyers withdrew from a third of immigration cases that had gone as far as a judicial review.
Figures from the Government Legal Department (GLD) show that between March last year and this month, it recorded 100 “substantive hearing outcomes”, of which 36 judicial reviews were upheld and 64 dismissed.
In the same period it said the Home Office had withdrawn 1454 judicial reviews by consent of either party.
The figures also show that between April 2012 and July this year, the GLD has been instructed in 12,366 judicial reviews involving entry clearance, points based system and student applications.
Judicial review is a legal process where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body – a challenge to how a decision has been made, rather than its rights and wrongs.
It comes after The National revealed last month that the Home Office had been forced to back down from almost 13,000 immigration appeals in the past five years – information that came from our original FOI request to the Home Office last November. That request had sought information relating to the number of appeals made against visa decisions since 2012.
The Home Office only divulged the figures after the Information Commissioner warned it could face legal action for not responding to our original FOI request within the required timescale.
It then referred us to the GLD for the data on judicial reviews.
However, in a masterpiece of obfuscation that would put Yes Prime Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appleby to shame, the GLD said it did not hold the information requested, yet still managed to provide figures “in order to assist and advise you”.
Asked to say how many judicial reviews had been lodged against visa decisions since April 2012, the department replied: “GLD does not hold this information.
“In this connection GLD does not specifically categorise judicial reviews according to whether they challenge visa decisions.
“The wording ‘visa decisions’ could cover a range of decisions including entry clearance applications and points based system/student applications.
“GLD does hold data in respect of judicial reviews lodged in these areas, most of which would relate to judicial reviews against visa decisions.
“However, it would not be possible to break this down into visa and non-visa decisions without a case-by-case examination of thousands of judicial reviews to determine the origin of the case.”
The department went on to say that this would exceed the cost limits on FOI requests.
When we asked home many judicial reviews had been upheld, the GLD said it did have the information.
It added: “Our records in respect of judicial reviews upheld/rejected are not fully comprehensive and our records are not complete for the period requested.”
We were then given the figures for substantive hearing outcomes in the past year.
Ian Blackford, the SNP’s Westminster leader, told The National: “I am astonished because what it indicates is that when individuals are prepared to go to a judicial review – which of course for the complainant involves considerable costs – they have to be prepared to do that.
“It appears on the figures supplied to you that the vast majority of these cases have been settled before they get to judicial review.
“Moreover, taking the period that figures have been made available by the Government Legal Department, it seems that even with the 100 cases that went to court between March 2016 and September 2017, the Government lost a third of them.
“It is very clear evidence that the immigration system is not working.”
Blackford added: “It is targeting those who have rightful claims to be here and it’s causing pain and unjustifiable expense for those in that situation, but also unjustifiable expense for the UK taxpayers who are having to pay to fight these cases.”
Meanwhile, Gregg and Kathryn Brain and their young son Lachlan, who successfully fought a Home Office bid to deport them last year, are believed to be preparing to meet their lawyers soon to apply for a four-year extension to their visa.
The family, originally from Australia but now living in Dingwall, have raised around £5000 through crowdfunding to help meet application and legal fees, but still have to raise a further £1500 to satisfy official requirements.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here