Legal advice survey finds low levels of representation and access to justice

The latest edition of BID’s regular Legal Advice Surveys has now been published.  

The research raises several serious concerns regarding the lack of legal representation for those in immigration detention.  

Continuing the trend from last year’s summer survey, only 42% of our respondents had immigration lawyers. Even more concerningly, only 27% of people had lawyers through legal aid. This demonstrates significant issues with the Duty Detained Advice Scheme as well as the impacts of the LASPO Act in 2012 which removed many non-asylum immigration cases from the scope of legal aid.  

Most unrepresented respondents cited reasons relating to funding when asked why they had no lawyer; no one had accessed Exceptional Case Funding despite funding being a clear barrier.   

Many were uncertain as to whether they even had a lawyer or not. Communication issues were a repeated theme throughout the report.  

With more than half of all people in detention released on bail in 2024, it is vital that people have access to legal advice on bail, and this falls within the scope of legal aid. However, when asked, only 55% of people with a lawyer said they had submitted bail applications for them.  

BID believes immigration detention is inhumane, unnecessary and unjust. At BID, we campaign for an end to the deprivation of individuals’ liberty for the purposes of immigration control. 

However, while the detention of individuals for immigration purposes continues, it is crucial that they have access to quality, timely and consistent legal advice in order to challenge their detention and to progress their underlying immigration case. 

In order for this to be possible, we propose the following recommendations as a matter of urgency.  

1. We recommend that all immigration cases be brought back into the scope of legal aid, reversing the effect of the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO).  
2. In the interim, we recommend that immigration lawyers receive legal aid funding for ECF applications, even if not ultimately granted.  
3. We recommend that legal aid lawyers be permitted to self-authorise grants of ECF without needing to complete and submit application forms to the Legal Aid Agency. This will encourage take up of the ECF process and it will reduce unnecessary administration (and expense) on the part of the lawyer and the Legal Aid Agency. However, grants of ECF will remain subject to audit to ensure the procedure is being properly applied.  
4. We recommend that every individual being detained under immigration powers should be automatically allocated an appointment with an immigration lawyer through the Detained Duty Advice Scheme, unless the individual opts out. Individuals should be informed about this appointment in good time, with required confirmation of receipt.  
5. We recommend the end of the use of prisons for detaining people under immigration powers. This practice means that people being held under immigration powers do not have equal access to justice compared to those held in IRCs.  
6. In the interim, we recommend an urgent review of the Telephone Legal Advice Service and the introduction of face-to-face legal advice for those held under immigration powers in prisons. This will ensure that people held under immigration powers have access to legal advice on their immigration case at the earliest point possible.   
7. Following from the above, we recommend that any legal advice scheme in prisons must offer advice to individuals from the moment that the Home Office engages with their immigration matter or takes steps to do so. This includes individuals who are still serving a criminal sentence.  
8. We recommend that the DDAS should be reviewed in the following ways: 
   1. The LAA should review the number of providers on the rota with a view to increasing the number of cases being taken on and reducing waiting times 
   2. The LAA should carry out an in-depth review of the quality of advice on the surgery rota and remove providers that are not providing sufficiently high-quality advice and client care, or routinely not taking on cases. 
   3. In light of the lack of trust in the DDAS surgeries expressed by people in detention, the LAA should enable and assist detainees to seek advice from any non-surgery legal aid lawyer of a person’s choosing.  
   4. There should be automatic entitlement to legal aid representation at bail hearings at least every 28 days 
9. We recommend that legal advice providers are encouraged to send lawyers to surgeries in IRCs in person, based on feedback that the quality of advice is better in person. 
10. We recommend that the literature on all legal advice matters in IRCs – in particular the right to have free legal advice on bail regardless of your immigration matter – must be improved to increase accessibility and awareness. 
    1. The literature should be available in all necessary languages for the population of the IRC. If a translation for an unavailable language is requested, it should be provided as soon as possible.  
11. We recommend that the decision to prohibit social media in IRCs be reconsidered.

Read the report