Gill, Nick and Rotter, Rebecca and Burridge, Andrew and Allsopp, Jennifer
(2019).
Asylum appeal hearing observations at First-tier Tribunal hearing centres in the UK, 2013-2016.
[Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex:
UK Data Archive.
10.5255/UKDA-SN-852032
When asylum seekers' claims for asylum get refused they often appeal in front of an immigration judge at a hearing centre that is part of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
Little academic work has examined how these hearings are conducted in practice. Are they conducted consistently, for example, and if not how do they vary? While aggregate data on outcomes (that is, the decisions of judges) can be obtained by court, no record of the happenings during these hearings is made publicly available. As a result a clear view of the procedures of the tribunal, and hence of procedural justice, remains obscured. This project examined in detail what happens during asylum appeal hearings through ethnography, interviews and via a survey. In so doing it aims to explore the degree to which process varies according to a number of factors including the location of hearings, the scheduling of the case, the gender of appellant and judge and whether the appellant is unrepresented. Alongside these specific questions, the data deposited here - which is derived from the survey-based part of the project - offers a unique view onto a legal process that it rarely examined in detail from the perspective of what actually happens during the hearings.
Data description (abstract)
Quantitative collection of observations of 240 First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) substantive asylum appeal hearings and 50 First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) substantive Detained Fast Track asylum appeal hearings in the UK. For each individual hearing, observations of 809 and 889 variables resp. were recorded. The data collection contains two versions with different access conditions: a version available to registered users (RUO) containing 91 and 46 cases; and a closed version (CA) of all cases for which access can be requested from the depositor.
During the research also qualitative data were collected: ethnographic research diaries completed by researchers who observed around 100 asylum appeal hearings from the public gallery of the tribunal rooms; and interviews with asylum appellants, clerks, interpreters, friends of appellants, and legal actors. These data are not included here.
| Data creators: |
| Creator Name |
Affiliation |
ORCID (as URL) |
| Gill Nick |
University of Exeter |
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6064-8157
|
| Rotter Rebecca |
University of Edinburgh |
|
| Burridge Andrew |
University of Exeter |
|
| Allsopp Jennifer |
University of Oxford |
|
|
| Contributors: |
| Name |
Affiliation |
ORCID (as URL) |
| Rotter Rebecca |
University of Edinburgh |
|
| Burridge Andrew |
University of Exeter |
|
| Allsopp Jennifer |
University of Oxford |
|
| Griffiths Melanie |
University of Birmingham |
|
| Paszkiewicz Natalia |
University of Bath |
|
|
| Sponsors: |
Economic and Social Research Council
|
| Grant reference: |
ES/J023426/1
|
| Topic classification: |
Law, crime and legal systems
Society and culture
|
| Keywords: |
Asylum applicants, Asylum appeals, First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), hearing centres, Legal geography, Ethnography, Courts, Structured observation, Legal decision-making, Consistency, judgments (legal), refugees, Asylum seekers, asylum appellants
|
| Project title: |
Exploring asylum appeal decision making processes at First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) hearing centres in the UK
|
| Alternative title: |
Original Project Title: "Explaining geographic disparities in asylum appeal success rates at different hearing centres around the UK"
|
| Grant holders: |
Nick Gill
|
| Project dates: |
| From | To |
|---|
| 21 January 2013 | 31 July 2016 |
|
| Date published: |
17 Jul 2019 14:16
|
| Last modified: |
17 Jul 2019 14:28
|
| Collection period: |
| Date from: | Date to: |
|---|
| 21 January 2013 | 31 July 2016 |
|
| Country: |
United Kingdom |
| Data collection method: |
Three researchers observed a total of 290 substantive asylum appeal hearings (240 standard and 50 Detained Fast Track) in their entirety at three hearing centres in the UK. For each hearing, the researchers completed a Pro Forma in real time; in some cases the Pro Forma was a paper form but in most cases it was a fillable PDF form loaded onto an electronic tablet or small laptop. The Pro Forma covered a comprehensive range of variables in each hearing. Data from the Pro Forma was manually entered into a spreadsheet in the case of the paper form and electronically extracted into a spreadsheet in the case of the PDF form. Data collection took place over the periods February 2014-August 2014 (Standard Hearings) and September-December 2014 (Detained Fast Track hearings). A sample size of approximately 80 hearings per hearing centre was selected to allow us to generate generalisable findings. We estimate that our sample of 290 appeals accounts for around 4.7% of the total number of appeals determined during 2014. |
| Observation unit: |
Individual, Event/Process |
| Kind of data: |
Numeric, Text |
| Type of data: |
Qualitative and mixed methods data, UK survey data |
| Resource language: |
English |
|
| Data sourcing, processing and preparation: |
INFORMED CONSENT AND PERMISSION TO CONDUCT OBSERVATIONS.
The research involved the observation of publicly-accessible asylum appeal hearings, from the public galleries of court rooms in First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) hearing centres and in the Detained Fast Track. The researchers followed the British Psychological Society’s code of ethics which states that “Unless those observed give their consent to being observed, observational research is only acceptable in public situations where those observed would expect to be observed by strangers” (BPS, 2010, p25). Measures were also taken to ensure that relevant parties were aware of the research and that appellants in particular could request not to be observed. Such measures included: 1) giving prior notification to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and thereby to designated immigration judges of the researchers’ intention to observe hearings for the purposes of the research project; 2) honoring any requests by judges, appellants or other parties for the researchers to leave the court room; and 3) explaining the research and its governance (including the guarantee of anonymity for all parties observed) to any parties who were curious about the researchers’ presence.
In addition to following professional codes of conduct and ethical guidelines, the researchers adhered to the Tribunal Rules on the reporting of hearings. The Rules allow for ‘reporting restrictions’ or ‘anonymity directions’ to be set in sensitive cases (e.g. those involving: a child or vulnerable person; personal information about people under 18, the disclosure of which might adversely affect their welfare; highly personal evidence that should remain confidential; a claim that the appellant would be at risk of harm by publishing their names and details; a case where the publication of the determination could be used to support a later sur place claim for refugee status) (Presidential Guidance Note [No. 2 of 2011] on Anonymity Directions in the FtT[IAC]). In effect, the Rules dictate that reporting of the proceedings – whether via the judge’s official determination, media reporting, research data or otherwise – must not directly or indirectly identify the appellant or any member of their family. The data contained in this submission relate to the procedural aspects of case hearings, and not to the content of cases themselves, substantially reducing the risks associated with the data. In the RUO data versions, where anonymity directions in particular apply to a case, the entire case has been redacted. All cases involving minors have also been redacted completely from each version. The RUO data files therefore only contain 91 cases and 46 DFT cases.
ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY.
The research involved the collection of sensitive data which could compromise the research subjects and the researchers, and be harmful to asylum appellants in particular if discussed outside the court. It was therefore imperative that raw survey and ethnographic data was kept securely stored on encrypted devices. In preparing data for analysis and sharing, it was crucial to subject it to a process of anonymisation in order to minimise the risk of harm to the individuals observed and adhere to the aforementioned Tribunal Rules, whilst still maintaining the integrity and utility of the data. This involved careful consideration of both direct and indirect identifiers in the data.
Direct identifiers include appeal reference numbers, the names of the appellant, immigration judge, legal representative, Home Office Presenting Officer, interpreter and witnesses involved in hearings; and the address of the appellant. This information has been removed from both the RUO and CA versions to prevent the identification of individuals.
Sensitive, case-specific information whose disclosure could pose a real risk of harm to individual appellants, such as details about the asylum claim itself and the mental and/or physical health of the appellant, and free-text fields describing in detail various parties’ behaviors in the court room, have also been removed from both the RUO and CA versions.
The data also included indirect identifiers which, when linked with other publicly available information sources – such as the daily court listings posted on the Tribunal website which specify the appeal reference number, the interpreter language, the legal firm and occasionally the name of the appellant for each hearing centre each day - could enable the identification of individuals. Examples of indirect identifiers in the data include the date of the hearing, the name of the hearing centre, the court room number, the identity of witnesses, the legal firm, and the interpreter language. Some cases involved rare features, such as an underrepresented nationality, a large number of witnesses, or the presence of an expert witness, which meant that they could be easily identified by individuals involved in asylum casework. Where possible, this information has been modified to maximise its potential for (re)use but prevent the identification of individuals. For example, the specific date of the hearing has been simplified to the month in which it took place in the RUO versions. The level of anonymity employed is sensitve to the degree of access that is offered by both versions, and is sufficient to ensure that no lay person, nor anyone who was present at the hearing, is able to derive potentially harmful information from any case.
The accompanying AsylumAppealsDatasetNotesRUO.xlsx, AsylumAppealsDatasetNotesCA.xlsx, AsylumAppealsDFTDatasetNotesRUO.xlsx and AsylumAppealsDFTDatasetNotesCA.xlsx files set out descriptive data for each variable (pertaining to a row in the dataset) and indicate where changes to data have been made, and where data has been removed altogether.
QUALITATIVE DATA.
The data excludes the ethnographic diaries because they were kept by hand and included many identifying features that it would not be feasible to remove.
The collection excludes the interview data for the following reasons. Generally we found that these groups did not give consent to their interview transcript being deposited in an archive. In order to proceed with the research, interviews were therefore undertaken on the basis that this deposition would not occur. The nature of the material is of a legally sensitive nature that may have safety implications for those concerned. In these circumstances the stakes of releasing even interview data that we have anonymised are felt to be too high. The nature of the material might attract attention from, and potentially strengthen and inform, malevolent groups from which appellants are seeking sanctuary in the UK.
|
| Rights owners: |
|
| Contact: |
|
| Notes on access: |
The Data Collection is available for download to users registered with the UK Data Service. Requests for access to CA files are subject to the permission of the data owner or his/her nominee. Please email the contact person for this data collection to request permission to access the data, explaining your reason for wanting access to the data, then contact our Access Helpdesk.
|
| Publisher: |
UK Data Archive
|
| Last modified: |
17 Jul 2019 14:28
|
|
Available Files
Data
Documentation
Read me
Edit item (login required)
 |
Edit Item |
