Law Society calls for focus on Home Office decisions over new appeals body
The Law Society of England and Wales has urged the UK government to abandon plans for a new independent appeals body for immigration and asylum cases, warning that reforms should instead prioritise improving decision-making within the Home Office.
In its response to a government call for evidence published on 22 April 2026, the Law Society stated that addressing the root causes of delays in the asylum system would be more effective than introducing a new appeals structure.
Mark Evans, president of the Law Society, said reforms should focus on ensuring decisions are made correctly at the initial stage. He stated that improving the quality of Home Office decisions would reduce the need for appeals and help address the backlog more directly.
The proposed reforms include replacing the existing First-Tier Tribunal with a new appeals body. The Law Society raised concerns about the potential impact on fairness, noting that the proposed body would consist of lay decision-makers rather than legally qualified professionals.
Evans said that previous systems relying on non-legally qualified adjudicators had been abandoned after proving ineffective. He added that the absence of clarity around the independence of the proposed body was particularly concerning, given that the Home Office would remain a party to the appeals process.
The Law Society also highlighted data suggesting systemic issues in initial decision-making. According to Home Office figures, only 52% of decisions met internal quality standards in 2023/24. Further analysis by the National Audit Office found that 42% of sampled asylum decisions contained significant errors in the year ending May 2025.
In addition, tribunal statistics show that 45% of asylum refusals reviewed by the First-tier Tribunal were overturned in the year ending March 2025, indicating a high rate of successful appeals.
The organisation argued that these figures demonstrate the need for reform at the decision-making stage rather than at the appeals level. It recommended stabilising asylum policy, improving efficiency within the existing tribunal system, and increasing funding for legal aid.
The Law Society also criticised the consultation process for the proposed reforms, describing it as insufficient. Evans noted that the initial four-week consultation period, which took place over Easter and was later extended by two weeks, did not provide adequate time for meaningful engagement.
He warned that rushed reforms risk repeating previous mistakes or creating new issues within the system. The Law Society called on the government to provide a more comprehensive consultation process and to respond fully to stakeholder concerns.
The intervention reflects ongoing debate over how best to address delays and backlogs in the UK asylum system, with legal bodies emphasising the importance of maintaining procedural fairness while improving efficiency.