Uncover the Shocking Truth: Why the Court System Must be Held Accountable for Letting Violent Offenders Stay in the UK
The Need for Transparency in Asylum Tribunal Decisions
Inaccessible Rulings Raise Questions
The court system which let chemical attacker Abdul Ezedi stay in the UK must be opened up to allow more scrutiny of decisions, experts say. The 35-year-old sex offender, who drowned in the Thames after hurling chemicals at an ex-partner and her children in South London, won his case at an anonymized first-tier asylum tribunal. Rulings from this lower tier of tribunals are not published.
Lack of Publication Raises Concerns
Most asylum tribunal cases are heard with just four people in the room — a judge, the migrant, their lawyer, and a Home Office civil servant. Journalists can apply for a copy of a decision but requests must be approved by court officials. Last year, 37,000 cases were heard by first-tier asylum tribunals, which sit in 12 places including London, Cardiff, Bradford, and Newcastle. Ministry of Justice stats show they allowed 49 per cent of appeals compared with 34 per cent 15 years ago.
Opaque Processes Lead to Dangerous Outcomes
Central Recorder on Sunday found a string of migrants with questionable claims were not revealed to the public until they were heard by the upper tier, the findings of which are routinely published. One criminal who illegally sneaked into Britain twice had his appeal to stay upheld by a first-tier judge. And a firearms and drug crook called CSM successfully argued he was no longer a threat — despite entering the UK with false documents a year after being flown home from a stint in prison.
Demand for Transparency Grows Stronger
Last night, campaigners backed calls to allow the public to access all judgments. Expert David Spencer said: “Findings of all immigration tribunals should absolutely be published.” Former Cabinet minister Mark Francois said: “Results of court cases are published so why not of immigration tribunals?” A barrister, who has represented clients at tribunal hearings, said: “Where judges produce rulings that require or deserve scrutiny, the public and the media should have the chance to do that.”