.

Specialist Prison & Law Criminal Appeals Firm

[reecethomaswatson]

Thank you! Power Yoga

We are raising money for @Sense @CourtBasedPSU  @new_bridge Please come along to The Vineyard Upper Street - Friday 6th April from 6pm Pub quiz Raffle Bake Sale All proceeds go to the charities A HUGE THANKS TO @am_power_yoga for  a fantastic prize. You are very kind.

[reecethomaswatson]

Charity Pub Quiz

Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors are hosting a Charity Pub Quiz to raise money for Sense Personal Support Unit New Bridge Foundation

Please come along!

At the Vineyard, Upper Street - Friday 6th April from 6pm

Raffle and Bake Sale All proceeds go to the charities

[reecethomaswatson]

Charity Event - Pub Quiz

Reece Thomas Watson are pleased to invite you to Charity Pub Quiz on the 6th April 2018 at the Vineyard, Upper Street Islington. www.vineyardislington.co.uk

Kathryn, Sara and Faye are running the London Marathon in April as a firm we are raising money for three worthwhile charities:

• Sense “Sense is a national disability charity that supports people with complex communication needs to be understood, connected and valued. We began, and continue, to support people who are deafblind. The mission is simple – to make sure no one with complex communication needs is isolated, left out or unable to fulfil their potential”

• New Bridge Foundation

“By befriending offenders in prison New Bridge volunteers help them to reconnect with the world outside. New Bridge is non-judgmental, trustworthy and constant in support of prisoners. A befriender writes letters, visits the prisoner and keeps in contact wherever the prisoner moves.  Any prisoner who wants a befriender can write to New Bridge”

• PSU “Many thousands of people find they must represent themselves in court during life-changing situations: divorce, contact with their children, eviction, and trying to recover debts. The PSU helps people to represent themselves more effectively in civil and family cases and tribunals. Our free, instant-access service is provided by trained volunteers based in court buildings”

We will are hosting a pub quiz to start at 6.30pm.  We will also be having other fundraising on the evening with a Tombola and Bake Sale and a DJ on at 9pm.

Everyone is welcome please come down by yourself or with a team and have a fun evening whilst raising money for three worthwhile charities.

RSVP would be great if possible.

Thanks

If you cant make it and would like to donate

http://www.justgiving.com/owner-email/pleasesponsor/Kathryn-Reece-Thomas

[reecethomaswatson]

Prison Policy Has to Change

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/25/letters-prison-failure-housing-rental-anorexia 

The guardian comments on the prison crisis.

[reecethomaswatson]

Young People in Custody by Oneija Taher, Paralegal at RTW

Young people between the ages of 18-21, make up over 10% of the prison population. They are without a doubt, the most vulnerable, volatile and disordered group inside our criminal justice system. The last few years has seen a spike in the number of violent assaults inside Young Offender Institutions (‘YOI’). The Government cuts to the prison budget has propelled the prison estate to debilitating conditions with a crisis in staffing levels; leaving young offenders susceptible to danger.

HMYOI Aylesbury is amongst England and Wales, oldest and most established YOIs. It houses some of our most troubled young men, with many at the establishment serving life imprisonment. In 2015, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (‘HMCIP’), had produced a damning report on HMYOI Aylesbury, with a follow-up in April 2017. The findings showed that nearly two-thirds of young offenders felt unsafe, with many spending unhealthy periods of time in Segregation. The 2015 report had made ‘17 recommendations in the area of safety’ for this establishment. Shockingly, the follow-up inspection 2 years later, found that only 4 of these recommendations were fulfilled. Adequate measures should be in place, to ensure the safety of vulnerable young adults, along with robust services designed to address the behaviour of volatile young prisoners.

The rise in gang related violence, along with the issues that come out of psychoactive drugs being rife among prison wings, has left many young offenders self-segregating themselves. Young adults self-isolate themselves by refusing to come out of their cells at all, or by deliberately breaking prison rules, to be taken into Segregation. This means that often young offenders cannot complete their sentence plan in order to progress and work towards release. This also leaves young offenders susceptible to depression and/or the propensity to self-harm.

HMCIP, worryingly found the ‘strategy for addressing violence had lapsed’ in HMYOI Aylesbury, with 133 assaults on prisoners in the last 6 months of the 2017 inspection. In addition to this, ‘fewer than half of prisoners say they had a member of staff to turn to if they had a problem’. Many of the young offenders represented by Reece Thomas Watson, have expressed that they feel there is little to no protection from prison officers when it is apparent that a dangerous incident is about to unfold.

Statistics show that more than half of young people reoffend within 12 months of release. Perhaps this is due to the lack of robust strategies to address offending behaviour whilst in prison? The surge in violence in YOIs, leaves many young offenders unable to take part in offending behaviour work, due to most being in group settings, which has the propensity to lead to violence.

The lack of control in such an area, prevents rehabilitation for what is, the most vulnerable group in the justice system. It is apparent that the prison regime and security in YOIs are in dire need for change, so that young people are safe and in good-stead upon release.

[reecethomaswatson]

Adjudications part 2- A successful challenge  by Faye Dyke, Solicitor at RTW

The most notable adjudication I provided representation at took place on 22 March 2017. My clients were two co-accused cell-mates who were found guilty by an independent adjudicator (IA) of an offence contrary to prison rule 12A; that being in possession of an unauthorised item.

 On 23 February 2017 the cell was searched by prison officers. The Reporting Officer (“RO”) said that upon entering the cell Mr A claimed that he was using the toilet, but appeared to be deploying a ruse. The RO said that he saw Mr. A attempting to dispose of items down the toilet, including a mobile phone that had been seen in his hand. Mr. A was put under restraint, and when the toilet was searched a plastic package was found. The package contained several individual wraps of a “brown unauthorised substance”.

 Mr. B, for his part, was said by the RO to have been put under restraint and reported because he had been seen trying to “plug” something up his backside when the cell search began. He was later searched but nothing was found.

 The substance was not tested, or photographed, and appeared to have been destroyed. The applications for testing and production of evidence were refused by the IA as it was deemed ‘not necessary’.

 Guilt was established by the IA beyond reasonable doubt, and they co-accused were each sentenced to 7 additional days.

 The lack of evidence, and unfairness, in this case resulted in grounds for Judicial Review. In June 2017, claims were issued. They included an overarching challenge to the current structure of the IA system. The claimants submitted that an IA does not meet the requirements of a “tribunal” for the purposes of Article 6 ECHR because an IA is not governed by any or sufficient rules of law, resulting in a lack of accessibility and foreseeability.

 In summary, the grounds relied upon were:

i.                     “The decisions of 22 March 2017 were invalid because an independent adjudicator does not satisfy the requirements of a “tribunal” for the purposes of Article 6 ECHR because it does not operate under a prescribed set of rules and, in any event, does not operate within a legal framework that sufficiently accessible and foreseeable to comply with the requirements of the convention;

ii.                   Further or alternatively, the decisions were unlawful because the refusal to permit the item concerned to be tested and/or the failure to have it produced at the hearing offended the minimum standards of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR;

iii.                 Further or alternatively, and in the case of Mr. B only, the decision was invalid because the IA failed to consider whether he was exercising “control” over the item, which was an essential ingredient of the offence charged.”  

 On 21 November 2017, Counsel for the claimants, Matthew Stanbury of Garden Court North, argued that by not testing the item discovered, it could not be known whether it was unauthorised. In addition, advancing that Independent Adjudications do not meet the requirements of a tribunal for the reasons provided above.

 The High Court Judge stated that the IA looked at all the circumstances and found as a fact that Mr. A was trying to conceal something in the toilet – a brown substance in several wraps. The IA was therefore justified in inferring that Mr. A was not putting cocoa down the toilet.

 Consequently, grounds 1 and 2 failed.

 However, ground 3 for Mr. B succeeded. His finding of guilt was quashed.  

 This was a great result, however, the quest for binding guidance and exacting standards of fairness in Independent Adjudications goes on…

If you or a loved one needs help with advice or representation in these matters we would be happy to assist. 

[reecethomaswatson]

Independent Adjudications – independent, just and fair? Part one 

by Faye Dyke - solicitor at RTW 

A prisoner will be adjudicated when alleged to have broken a prison rule. The charge is first heard by the Governor, who, depending on the seriousness, will either:

1.       Deal with the matter themselves;

2.       refer the charge to the Independent Adjudicator (“IA”); or

3.       refer the matter to the police.

 The IA is a District Judge who comes into the prison to deal with the case. If the matter is referred to the IA, the prisoner is at risk of additional days being added to their sentence; this is not a power that the Governor has.

 In 2011, the Ministry of Justice issued internal guidance to cover Governor adjudications (PSI 47/2011). This guidance does not bind an IA, but some will accept that the guidance should be followed. In my experience, there are inconsistencies in approach between different IAs. This often results in unfair and unjust decisions. It also makes the outcome of the hearing difficult to predict and difficult to reassure clients of a positive result when their case is evidentially flawed from the outset.  

 The IA is unique in not being governed by statutory rules, or binding guidance. Such rules govern the conduct of the Parole Board – the Parole Board Rules, Criminal Courts – statute, common law and the Criminal Procedure Rules. The IA supposedly applies “natural justice” (common law fairness) having regard to the offences set out in the Prison Rules. Prison Rule 54 provides no more than that a person shall be given “a full opportunity to presenting what is alleged against him and of presenting his own case.”

 The judgment of the Strasbourg Court in Ezeh v United Kingdom [2003] 39 EHRR 1, held that where additional days may be imposed, a prison disciplinary hearing (Independent Adjudication) will be “criminal” proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 ECHR (that being the right to a fair trial).

 Notably, the standard of proof for the IA to establish guilt is the same– satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The punishment is similar to that of criminal charges – imprisonment.

 However, unlike criminal proceedings, the rules of evidence do not apply, and the Prison Rules are silent on such important matters as:

i.                     The admissibility of evidence, including hearsay evidence;

ii.                   The exclusion of evidence that might render the proceedings unfair;

iii.                 Any entitlement to an interpreter;

iv.                  The principles governing the granting of adjournments; and

v.                   The principles governing a decision to proceed in the prisoner’s absence.

 These matters are fundamental to Article 6, and their absence curtails Article 6, which is said to apply.

 I have represented clients where an application for dismissal has been made on the basis of duplicity, as per paragraph 1.14 of PSI 47/2011. Sometimes this is accepted, on other occasions it is not.

 Different Judges take different approaches to the testing of seized items, the production of evidence and the request for the reporting officer’s attendance to test their evidence.  

 Judges are often content with the sentence, or two, of the ‘facts’ of the case detailed on the charge sheet. How does this go to an independent and impartial review when an officer’s evidence is not put to proof? Quite simply, it doesn’t.  

 Similar issues have been encountered when items alleging to be drugs have been discovered. In cases where the item has not been tested, an application for confirmation testing will be made to ascertain what the substance is as this is relevant to the amount of days the IA may impose. The applications are sometimes refused. In one particular case at HMP Pentonville the application was refused on the basis that it was a green substance and so would be treated as cannabis.

 This would never stand in a court of law. The rules of evidence would permit the substance to be produced and tested. If it was not, the case would be thrown out. So why is this not the case in Independent Adjudications where a Strasbourg case has held that they are “criminal” proceedings?

Faye Dyke challenged this case  via Judicial Review and had success. Read more  in Part Two of this Blog

[reecethomaswatson]

Legal Aid Reinstated Kathryn Reece-Thomas We are delighted to confirm that from the 21 February Legal Aid will be reinstated for the following cases. The Criminal Legal Aid (Amendments) Regulation 2017 No.1319 was prepared by the Ministry of Justice and laid before Parliament.   What does this mean for Prisoners? Who benefits? • Those who are due to have Pre-Tariff Parole Board Hearings. This is a real victory for this category of prisoners. We think it is crucial for Prisoners who are pre-tariff or only have a referral to progress to open conditions to be represented. For prisoners serving life or IPP sentences progression to open conditions as soon as possible is crucial to be a successful application to released on target. Being able to access legal representation at this hearing allows for a succinct case to be put, your case to be argued persuasively and funding to be obtained for experts if needs be. From experience we know that Parole Board Panel’s prefer prisoners to be represented in the interests of fairness. • Cat A Review – It is crucial for progression from Cat A that prisoners are represented. Cat A Boards can be arbitrary and unfair. It is rare that Oral Hearings are directed and without legal aid to make representations or act at oral hearings many men will find themselves stuck in the HSE with little means to progress. We hope that more challenges can now be made by written representations and oral hearings. • Close Supervision Centre / Separation Centres A lot of prisoners who find themselves in such units can have behavioural issues or psychological issues. Once prisoners find themselves in CSC it can be very hard to get out of these units.  Extended periods in the Segregation are almost always unlawful, without legal aid prisoners were unable to challenge the decisions to place them in CSC, which is detrimental to sentence progression and eventual release. Legal aid is now is place to assist these prisoners, to ensure people are Segregated lawfully and able to challenge the decisions when they are not. If any of these issues affect you, then do not hesitate to contact us and we can advise further. Reece Thomas Watson 758 Holloway Road, N19 3JF 0203 841 8580

[reecethomaswatson]

Criminal Appeals concerns – Part 1 Transcripts

Written By Justinas Miknevicius

One would assume that the initial concerns regarding a criminal appeal would concern the: funding, grounds for appeal and similar legal issues. However, an issue that may not be obvious to individuals that have not previously dealt with Criminal Appeals, regards attaining transcripts.

Current policies mean that audio recordings (on which transcripts are based) are destroyed after 7 years upon conclusion of the case.  This may seem as though it gives enough time for anyone concerned to make a decision regarding the case, and in the event that they want to proceed with their criminal appeal matter, to instruct the representatives to acquire the transcripts. Similar rules apply to the retention of the criminal matter files for the criminal representative’s.

While the above statement may be correct for some; it ignores the diversity of people in prisons and mental health institutions. People who suffer from mental health issues are at risk of this 7 year rule; for example, one of my clients was suffering from mental health issues; during his trial, first admission to a mental health institution, second admission to prison. The aforesaid client in the midst of the mental health issues did not have concerns for his own self. Through the help of medication and medical staff the client has developed and now his mental health has improved. Furthermore, the client has no recollection of the details of his trial.  The importance of transcripts in such case cannot be stressed enough. However, as the client’s case was concluded over 7 years ago there is no audio for the transcript and we are left in the unknown. Moreover, it hampers the ability to interpret what had happened at the trial, preventing the ability to understand the direction given from the judge to the jury. Furthermore, this is not an isolated incident; there are more cases such as this at the firm. Therefore, it is concerning of the amount of such cases with different circumstances throughout the country.

This issue of no audio for the transcripts is being addressed. Lucy Powell MP has raised the concern of the lack of access to trial transcripts. Powell discussed court modernisation, voicing her opinion: that those who have been sentenced, should have the ability to; ‘get transcripts and to get the copies of the judge’s direction to the jury… because this can be incredibly difficult information to get’[1]. There has not been an official response to the point raised. As of recent, the courts throughout the country have changed to digital audio recording. Therefore, it is now easier to store the audio.  

While it is understandable of the amount of data used as for the audio recordings; as the technology develops, the space for the audio recording becomes cheaper, therefore, it would be beneficial, to the more vulnerable members of society, for this time to be increased or another safeguard to be introduced that would aid the way; of attaining transcripts, length of time given to do so. As it currently stands, there has been more questions raised, however, no development on the matter.

It is imperative that one considers criminal appeal as soon as possible.  We are able to assist you with this at Reece Thomas Watson.

  [1] Twitter link. https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/938092805334994944

[reecethomaswatson]

Worboys and the Parole Board

By Kathryn Reece-Thomas Director at Reece Thomas Watson.

 The public are outraged, it does not feel to most that justice has been done. Due to the privacy that surrounds the Parole Board process it has not seen to be done. Twitter is calling for Petitions to stop his release; Sadiq Khan has added to this saying this decision must be reconsidered.

We cannot identify why Worboys is due to be a free man, we cannot understand the rationale that the Parole Board must have applied to this clearly complex case to direct that he is released.

 So as someone who is a Prison and Parole Board specialist and someone who has acted for many offenders before the parole board, I wanted to contribute to the debate.

·        Speculation and suspicion are now been treated as fact. The facts however are clear, at trial he was convicted for attacking 12 victims and only one of these convictions was for rape. He was not convicted of 100’s of rapes. We do not know as to the evidence to these or if these could be proven. Its not the role of the Parole Board to add more time onto his sentence for these. They can consider this evidence but can’t convict him of these additional offences.

 Â·        Mr Worboys has not been released early, he has served the tariff which was given to him by the Sentencing Judge. He had to serve 8 years. He did this. After this he could be released, before this release however the Parole Board had to assess his risk. This is what happened back in November. It is not for the Parole Board to revisit this sentence, rehash the trial, make a judgement on the length of the tariff. Its not shocking that he served his tariff. This should not be issue today, whatever the views are on sentence on rape, the Oral Hearing is not a place to take issue.

 Â·        To satisfy the test for release Mr Woyboys had to prove he was not a risk of harm to the public. I cannot comment on what he did to do this.

 Â·        Experience however suggests to me that to be released most Sex Offenders must  complete a raft of offending behaviour work, this includes sex offender programme (SOTP), which can lead to extended SOTP and a Healthy Sex Functioning Programme (HSF). Following these course reports are prepared which is a lengthy sexual risk assessment. These course cover areas such as entitlement sex and attitudes to women. These areas are assessed following the course. HSF also used PPG, which measures blood flow to the penis to measure sexual arousal. In addition to this 1:1 might have taken place, he may have been in therapeutic environments. Without doubt he would also have had to have excellent custodial behaviour, not shown inclination to sexual offending, work in prison, held position of responsibly. It is highly likely risk will have also been tested in open conditions on day and over night releases and will have a full release plan.

 Â·        It is also likely the Parole board will have heard evidence from psychologist, probation service and prison officers. It is on this basis the Parole board reach a decision. They do not do so without all this evidence.

 Â·        Mr Woyboys likely will be residing in Approved Premises, its likely he will need to undertake further offending behaviour work as terms of his licence. He will have many stringent restrictions to ensure he is managed, these could be curfews, sign in times, restrictions on work, meetings with probation…. the list can go one. He is also on a life licence. This means any breach of these conditions any concerns about his behaviour he goes back to prison, this is for a minimum of 10 years and could be for life.

 Risk is dynamic, is changes over time, to rely simply on convictions and the offenders attitude at the time is not accurate. The Parole Board are trained to make these judgments, they can be very risk adverse.

They also must at times be brave, trust the information they have, make an assessment of the character of the person before them. Calls to second guess this, to revoke the decision are not helpful. The Board were the only three people involved who had all the papers, heard the evidence and spoke to Mr Worboys. They are not there to please the media, to please victims, offenders or the public. They are there to undertake a risk assessment.

 It could be that lessons can be learnt, perhaps the Parole Board should be more transparent. Justice should be done and seen to be done. There is no question that processes should work for victims to put forward their views and should always be told about the result of any hearing. Perhaps sentences for Rape need to be reviewed. These problems however do not mean that when The Parole Board sat to consider this case they did not do so correctly.

[reecethomaswatson]

The recall system – How does it work and is it fair? By Catherine Adam The rules about recall to prison can be complex when viewed for the first time and depend on the type of sentence being served. Most prisoners who have been sentenced to fixed terms in custody will be released on licence at the halfway point. Prisoners sentenced to life and those serving Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) Sentences (no longer imposed since 2012) are subject to different rules. Lifers will be subject to life licence (and recall to prison) for the remainder of their lives, although IPPs can make an application to have their licence conditions lifted.  Other prisoners who are serving Extended Sentences will be on licence for longer than ordinary determinate sentenced prisoners. Once released individuals will be subject to licence conditions.  There are six reasons that the MoJ records as reason to recall to prison.  These are:

• A further charge • Non-compliance with their licence conditions • Failure to keep in touch with their probation officer • Failure to reside at the pre-approved premisis • Breaking a licence condition eg relating to alcohol, or drugs, curfew • Other

Any of the above can be enough to trigger the licence being revoked and immediate recall back to prison.   This can seem extremely unfair in some instances where the breach has not been committing a further criminal offence.  An arrest, even if not charged may well be enough to trigger a recall. It can also occur when the Offender Manager was not completely in support of release and a minor disagreement takes place between them.

There are three different types of recall.  Once is a fixed term 28 day ‘wake up call’ which is stressful and frustrating for a potentially minor breach.  The second type would be standard recall which means that the remainder of the original sentence must be served unless they make a successful application to the Parole Board for re-release on licence.  The third type is Emergency recall prisoners who would otherwise be eligible for standard recall – but the prisoner poses such a risk to the public, or there is a real risk of reoffending, that immediate detention is warranted.

According to the latest figures published by the Parole Board, in the twelve months between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017, a total of 21,721 individuals were recalled, 481 of whom were IPPs. Many individuals are recalled for more than one reason. Almost half these IPPs (224/481 = 47%) were recalled because they were charged with a further offence. However, 267 (56%) were recalled for non-compliance; 120 (25%) for “fail to reside”; 86 (18%) for drugs & alcohol; 47 (10%) for failing to keep in touch and 85 (18%) for other reasons.

Commentators have pointed out that such huge numbers are recalled without having committed a further offence and they make up a significant proportion of the already overcrowded prison population.  

The current recall system seems not only unfair in cases where the licence revocation is for a minor breach but it also makes it very difficult for ex-prisoners who are on licence to rebuild their lives back in the community. In some cases ex-offenders have been released on a parole licence, have found work fairly quickly and have started the difficult process of reintegrating back into ‘normal’ life when a very minor incident or misunderstanding has resulted in an immediate recall to prison.

In one swift stroke, everything that a person has achieved since his or her release from prison; employment, educational courses, settled accommodation, can be destroyed and they can be left at risk from mental health issues, physical stress and financial meltdown. It can also prove devastating to their families, who are often left struggling to cope and desperately worried for the safety of their loved one who is back in prison without any idea of when, or even if, they will be released, especially in the case of lifers or IPPs, who after having had a taste of freedom may again face years without knowing what their eventual fate will be.

[reecethomaswatson]

IPP Prisoners: Where do they stand? 5 years on... Part One

By Oneija Taher - Paralegal at RTW

The Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences (IPPs) scheme, dreamt up by David Blunkett in 2003, came to a premature end in 2012 due to its overtly obvious human right breaches. However, as a result of the scheme, over 3,000 prisoners, face an uncertain future with no determinate date for release. Significantly, a vast majority of these prisoners are severely post-tariff.

The index offence of the majority of these prisoners are mostly what would be considered ‘lower level offences’. The sentence is evidently disproportionate to their crime. IPP’s would normally receive a tariff of 2-5 years. Such prisoners would be expected to complete offending behaviour work to demonstrate to the Parole Board that they have reduced the risk and no longer pose as a danger to the public, before they can be considered for release.

The difficulties most indeterminate sentence prisoners face is the prospect of playing the ‘waiting game’. The courses which they are instructed to complete in order to show that they have reduced their risk, are more often than not, unavailable at the establishment they have been sentenced to. They would have to wait to be transferred to one that does. With this, comes even more uncertainty, as only a limited number of prisons in England and Wales run such courses. It follows that, more resources must be pumped into the prisons so that indeterminate prisoners gain access to courses they need in order to be released.

The prison law charity, Howard League for Penal Reform has quite rightly described the IPP situation as ‘the never-ending story’. As someone working within Prison Law, I realised quite how devastating the situation was when a client who was serving a life sentence for murder said, “my situation is pretty bad, but I can only imagine how difficult it is for indeterminate prisoners who face an uncertain future”. Since joining the firm, I have met two IPP prisoners whom have been in custody who are post-tariff, 13 years combined. One client had lost all of his family members whilst on the sentence, and this combined with no hope of being released anytime soon, is recipe for the development of severe mental health issues.

Other than the more apparent obstacles prisoners on this sentence face, they are continuously receiving negative decisions from the Parole Board. This is often a decision for deferral, so that they can complete even further courses.

Despite the countless campaigns for the release of IPP prisoners and speedy Parole Board hearings, no action has been taken by the Ministry of Justice. The Chair of the Parole Board, Professor Nick Hardwick, accurately described IPP prisoners as ‘festering in prison’, when addressing this situation. An urgent review and reform for the rippled effect of the IPP scheme is required, as prisoners on an IPP sentence continue to live in uncertainty, with no hope for release anytime soon.

[reecethomaswatson]

Pro Bono Work at Queen Mary University Legal Advice Centre

The Queen Mary University Legal Advice Centre (LAC) offers free legal advice to the local community. The law students work alongside solicitors from the City to advise clients on the strength of their case, and provide them with an understanding of the legal issues and processes that need following.

I got involved with the LAC after researching about them and finding out that they required more Immigration Solicitors to give advice due to an overflow of clients requiring free advice. I was happy to provide my services to the LAC which included helping clients as well as students who wished to gain an insight into interviewing processes and learn more about Immigration matters.

So far I have dealt with a wide range of Immigration applications ranging from Asylum, domestic violence matters and entry clearance as spouses.

The clients range from a large range of ethnic backgrounds and Queen Mary’s is open to every member of the public.

The professional and high value initial immigration advice from Queen Mary’s has led to clients wanting further advice and have been welcomed into the office to over possible applications that they could make to regularise their stay in the UK.

The clients and students make the cause extremely worthwhile and the well organised nature of the LAC is extremely helpful. The feedback from the clients who seek the legal advice has been extremely positive with the organisers informing us that ‘Based on our recent survey, 100% of our clients would use us again and recommend our service to a friend.’

If you wish to seek free legal advice, please feel free to contact Queen Mary Legal Advice Centre or Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors on:

Queen Mary University Legal Advice Centre by email on [email protected] or:

Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors, 25 Horsell Road, Islington, N5 1XL

Tel: [phone]

Email: [email protected]

[reecethomaswatson]

Tribunal Fees Increase

Further to the recent update on the fact that Tribunal fees were going to increase, this has come into force on 10th October 2016. Now the Home Office have put out two separate sets of fees Guidance have been published catering for Home Office decisions dated between 19 December 2011 and 9 October 2016 and decisions made on or after 10 October 2016.

For Home Office decisions dated between 19 December 2011 and 9 October 2016 the guidance can be found at the following link:

https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/t495-eng.pdf

If an appeal fee is required then it will cost, for each person appealing, either: • £80 for an appeal to be determined on the papers provided; or • £140 for an appeal to be determined at an oral hearing.

For Home Office decisions made on or after 10 October 2016 the guidance that needs to be followed is the T495A Guidance. Please find the link below.

https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/t495a-eng.pdf

If an appeal fee is required then it will cost, for each person appealing, either: • £490 for an appeal to be determined on the papers provided; or • £800 for an appeal to be determined at an oral hearing.

The increase in fees of 500% to 600% are a big amount for individuals who wish to make an appeal. The reasons for the increases are to help Tribunals however the Home Office seem to have forgotten the clients. Many individuals will not be able to make a payment so large in order to appeal their decision leaving them not many options. What do they do then?

The other increases to tribunal fees are seen below:

Table 1: Proposed fee increase in the Immigration and Asylum chambers Appeal type                                                           Current fee Proposed fee

First-tier tribunal

Application for a decision on the papers       £80                 £490

Application for an oral hearing                      £140                £800

Application to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal                                                           Nil                   £455

Upper Tribunal

Application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal (made when the application to the First-tier Tribunal for permission has been refused)

                                                                        Nil                   £350

Appeal Hearing                                               Nil                   £510

What is your opinion on the increases of these fees?

Are you about to make an appeal and do not know where you stand?

Call us at Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors on 020 3841 8580 or by email [email protected]

[reecethomaswatson]

TIER 1 (INVESTOR) VISA

A Tier 1 Investor Visa is for high net worth individuals making a substantial financial investment in the UK. This category is for when you wish to invest £2,000,000 or more in the UK.

In order to be able to make this application, you must be outside the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland. You can invest the money into UK Government bonds, share capital or loan capital in active and trading UK registered companies.

The funds must be belonging either to yourself, your spouse, unmarried or same sex partner. The money must be held in one or more regulated financial institution and be free to spend (disposal) in the UK. However, it is possible to have the money in the UK or overseas when the application is made.

A decision on an application of this sort would normally be made within 8 weeks if you apply by post or usually on the same day if you are using the super-premium service.

There are a number of documents that would need to be submitted along with this application and usually the documents that are needed are dependent on each individual’s personal circumstances.

The above are the basic rules when applying for a Tier 1 (Investor) visa however are not the exhaustive rules required.

If applying for a Tier 1 (Investor) visa is something you are interested in then please ensure that you seek further legal advice from an Immigration specialist.

Pritesh Davdra Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors

[reecethomaswatson]

Fee Waiver on Home Office Applications

As everyone is aware, the Home Office have fees for any Immigration application that is made by an applicant. These can range from £65 for an EEA Residence Card Application to £1875 for Indefinite Leave to Remain Applications or in some cases even higher. So what if you cannot afford to pay the fee? What happens then?

The Secretary of State will cancel having to pay the fee if it would mean failure to do so would mean that the applicant is incapable of exercising their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Secretary of State will waive the fee in respect of certain types of applications, these being Leave to Remain under the 10-year partner, parent or private life route on the FLR(FP) form, where the applicant claims that refusal of that application for leave to remain would breach his or her rights under Article 8 ECHR (right to a private and family life) or applications for Leave to Remain on the basis of ECHR article other than Article 8 made on an FLR(O) form. So in other words, Article 8 applications, FLR(FP) applications and FLR(O) applications.

The main purpose to waive the fee is if it is deemed that the applicant would be rendered destitute if made to pay the fee.

An applicant will qualify for a fee waiver in the following circumstances:

1. When the applicant has demonstrated, by way of evidence, that they are destitute. (As set out more fully below, a person is deemed to be destitute for these purposes when they do not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it; and/or they cannot meet their other essential living needs); or

2. When the applicant has demonstrated, by way of evidence, that they would be rendered destitute by payment of the fee, because whilst they have adequate accommodation and can meet their essential living needs:

a) They have no additional disposable income such that they could either:

(i) pay the fee now; or (ii) save the required amount within a reasonable period (12 months) (and it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the applicant to delay their application for this length of time); in either event, without compromising their ability to accommodate themselves adequately or meet their other essential living needs; and

b) They have no ability to borrow the required amount from family or friends; and

c) There is no basis for concluding that the applicant’s financial circumstances are likely to change within a reasonable period (12 months) (and it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the applicant to delay their application for this length of time); or

3. The applicant has demonstrated, by way of evidence, that notwithstanding the fact that neither 1. nor 2. apply, there are exceptional circumstances in their case such that the fee waiver should be granted. The ‘exceptional circumstances’ relied on must relate to the applicant’s financial circumstances and their ability to pay the fee.

The Secretary of State informs us that the fee waiver application shall take into consideration the safeguarding and promotion of the welfare of children in the UK when making its decision.

So what about those people that are not making an Article 8, FLR(O) or FLR(FP) application? Why are their needs not considered? Why are they not applicable for a fee waiver if as the Secretary of State put it ‘it would mean that the applicant is incapable of exercising their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).’ Even those that are not making an application under FLR(O) or FLR(FP) are entitled to a right to a private and family life are they not even if they cannot afford the fee for say a naturalisation application?

I am currently in the process of making a naturalisation application under the basis of the fee waiver. My clients have limited funds available to them due to the disability they have. They are unable to work and therefore are unable to pay the high fees required of them by the Home Office. They have been resident in the UK for over 25 years and built their whole life in the UK. They wish to be naturalised however they are told they must pay the fees for this. However, in these cases the applicant would qualify for a fee waiver if making an FLR(O) or FLR(FP) application, as the applicant by way of evidence has proved that they are destitute. The clients, whilst having adequate accommodation and can meet essential living needs (just) have no additional disposable income for them to pay the fee now or save and pay in 12 months’ time. They have no friends or family that they can borrow from and there is no basis to conclude circumstances will change in the next 12 months. All these have been evidenced by way of documentary evidence. They have worked in this country, paid the taxes and lived a majority of their life in the UK building up a private and family life. So why should they not also be considered for the fee waiver? Why should the Secretary of State make them pay when someone making an FLR(O) or FLR(FP) application wouldn’t?

I intend to make the argument that these clients have developed an Article 8 right and also should be allowed the fee waiver on the basis of the law set out by the Secretary of State. There are no reasons as to why it is simply limited to the FLR(O) or the FLR(FP) applications and therefore it is believed that the fee waiver should be extended to all those that would fall under the criteria.

I shall keep everyone informed of how the application goes and what decision has been made by the Home Office on the applications sent.

If this is something that affects you or if you need some advice in relation to your situation, please feel free to contact us at Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors on 020 3841 8580. Our specialist Immigration Solicitor will be more than happy to help you.

Pritesh Davdra Immigration Solicitor Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors

[reecethomaswatson]

BREXIT

Theresa May takes over the job of Prime Minister tomorrow. Despite voting Remain Mrs. May has promised that, ‘Brexit means Brexit,’ this is a clear signal of her intent to invoke Article 50 and start the process of leaving the EU.

Mrs. May has also stated that there is no guarantee for protection or a right to remain for any of the EU nationals who are residing in the UK.

Clearly this is a worrying time for EU Nationals living in the UK. We would recommend that you take action now to regularise your status in the UK before we exit and don’t wait for Article 50 to be triggered.

Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors have an expert and dedicated Immigration Solicitor who can help businesses and individuals to navigate the consequences of Brexit and assist in guaranteeing your status in unclear times.

Reece Thomas Watson provides a number of options in helping to ensure peace of mind for all those concerned with the Brexit decision: • In-house seminars and consultations for employers, helping employers to understand the immigration implications of Brexit on their business and employees, plan for the future and manage staff concerns; • Regular updates as matters in relation to how Brexit proceed; • Liaising with the Home Office to represent our client’s views and concerns; • Applications for EEA nationals and their family members including: o Registration certificates/Residence cards (for EEA nationals and family members in the UK for less than 5 years) o Permanent residence certificates/cards (for EEA nationals and family members exercising Treaty rights in the UK for at least 5 years) o British citizenship applications (naturalisation/registration) (for EEA nationals and family members who have resided in the UK for at least 6 years by the date of exit from the EU). If you are concerned in relation to any of the above contact a member of our Immigration team for further information by calling 020 3841 8580 or by emailing us at [email protected].