Sir, Ann Treneman (T2, November 8) rightly draws attention to the inconsistency and often poor quality of decision-making in asylum cases. This is most evident in and has the most severe impact on those who have survived torture.

Major legislation over the past 30 years and the new Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have given the Home Office an arsenal of deterrent measures: visa regimes (most recently applied to Zimbabwe), fines of lorry drivers and ferry companies, large increase in the number of detention places, removal of cash benefits and other support, demeaning food vouchers, dispersal to remote locations, limiting or effective removal of appeal rights, and large “accommodation centres” that will lead to fast-tracking and removal.

Still they come, some fleeing persecution and torture, some seeking economic advantage. The arsenal of deterrence has only distorted the asylum system. For years, as a human rights organisation working with torture survivors, we have urged the Government to use more and better trained decision-makers who, at the very least, are supervised by those with first-hand experience or academic credentials related to the applicants’ countries of origin. We strongly believe that those who know about gross human rights abuses in those countries can best evaluate the evidence in individual cases.

Quality control of Home Office initial decisions is very limited. Most refusals are the result of a “one pair of eyes” policy, ie, virtually no checking by a senior caseworker. This inevitably leads to many poor decisions and a large number of successful appeals. The over-emphasis on deterrence cannot solve the problem of poor and inconsistent decision-making.

The way forward is surely to introduce greater independence into the process. Earlier this year, in its White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, the Government said it would consider the notion of an independent documentation centre to produce country-of-origin information, but failed to include it in the legislation.

Some non-governmental organisations would go further, with something along the lines of the Canadian Independent Refugee Board, to suggest that only through independence from the Government can come better and more consistent decisions.

A system in which the initial decision-makers dwell in the same department with those who seek to deter, detain and remove raises profound questions about natural justice. The Secretary of State acts as both prosecutor and judge in his own court.

Yours sincerely,
MALCOLM SMART
(Director),
Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture,
104-108 Grafton Road, NW5 4BD.
November 11.

Explore Letters

• Feedback