Charities are warning against the use of ‘remote’ legal advice for refugees and people seeking asylum as a response to ‘legal aid deserts’ and the crisis in legal aid exacerbated by ‘unsustainable fees’ and ‘burnt out’ lawyers. A new report by the Public Law Project (PLP) argues that the Government has been rolling out remote – as opposed to face to face legal advice – without sufficient research or any best practice guidelines.
Between 2012 and 2022, the number of legal aid firms and advice agencies collapsed by 40% as a result of the 2013 legal LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act) cuts, resulting in more people being forced to travel further to receive publicly funded legal help with immigration advice. According to the new study from PLP, with A & M Consultancy, Helen Bamber Foundation and Asylum Aid, the ‘poor geographical spread’ of in-person advice, particularly in dispersal areas, has left two-thirds of the population (63%) without access to a lawyer. ‘Those that do live near one of the remaining providers face significant barriers in accessing legally aided advice even then, as a result of saturated provider capacity precipitated by years of unsustainable legal aid fees, heavy administrative burdens and burnt-out practitioners,’ the report says. ‘Research has shown that the provision of immigration and asylum advice in England and Wales is ‘not even adequate for first-time adult asylum applications, with a deficit of at least 6,000 for asylum applications and appeals’.’ In the face of the ‘crisis in access to justice’, both providers and the Legal Aid Agency have explored the use of remote advice to bring together providers who have capacity to take on referrals outside of their contract area with clients struggling to find a legal aid provider near them.
‘While remote advice could be more convenient in some scenarios, it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution to the immigration legal aid crisis. Wherever possible, refugees and people seeking asylum need to have a say in how they speak to their legal representatives,’ says PLP’s Dr. Jo Hynes. ‘Remote advice might not be appropriate for sharing difficult or traumatic details, especially when so many people in the asylum system already feel so isolated and struggle with trusting strangers. If they’re in an environment with no privacy, they might not want to share crucial information on the phone.’
The research draws on interviews with people with experience of remote and in-person advice. ‘I want to stress that for people who are seeking asylum and were in the mental state that I was, face to face is crucial,’ one interviewee said; adding remote advice ‘has a very negative impact on [the] mental health of people’.
Hynes said remote advice was ‘not a safe harbour in an ocean of unmet need, but one intrinsically connected to the wider systemic issues facing the legal aid sector’. According to PLP, there is ‘no evidence on its impact on clients’ outcomes’ and ‘no clear data’ on what makes remote advice accessible or beneficial ‘or which groups would find it completely inaccessible’.
