CONFIDENTIAL
2
4. I recognise however that such advice, given the pressures on Hong Kong, is not particularly helpful. If an appeal system must be introduced, it should be swift and final otherwise Hong Kong could find itself in the same situation as Canada (where no failed asylum-seeker has been removed for two years) or Germany (where appeals to successive bodies can be dragged out for 3-4 years).
5. The objective (indeed the philosopher's stone) in this area is that of a swift but clearly effective right of appeal. Unfortunately no Western country has got near to securing such a system, whatever their intentions. In the UK, for example, the immigration appeals system began in 1969/70 with the notion of a quick hearing before a single adjudicator: it now encompasses a two tier system which takes as much as three or four years to deal with individual cases. principal factors which lead to delay are as follows:
i. more than one tier
ii.
The
Just as there is pressure for an appeal system against negative decisions by government, so too there will be pressure for an appeal against a negative decision on first hearing, especially if that decision is taken by a single adjudicator.
legal representation and quasi judicial procedure
It is, of course, difficult to resist the notion of legal representation before an appeal hearing and, indeed, in the UK, the government actually funds UKIAS to represent appellants. There is no doubt, however, that to allow legal representation plus all the trappings of a quasi judicial approach eg the calling of witnesses etc will prolong proceedings immeasurably. Time has to be given for the preparation of a case by the appellant; similarly the government case has to be prepared and presented before the adjudicator. This in itself involves about 100 staff in
the Home Office, leaving aside adjudicators and their support staff.
iii. the development of case law
A further danger of elaborated appeals is the danger of the development of a corpus of case law. This is demonstrated most clearly by the UK arrangements: every determination by an adjudicator or the Tribunal creates new arguments in future cases, all of which has to be carried forward in instructions to staff making screening decisions. This process greatly complicates the decision-making process and is one of the principal factors why it now takes us about 60% longer to reach an immigration decision than three years ago.
CONFIDENTIAL