The recent acceleration in the use of remote justice in the UK, prompted by COVID-19, raises the question of how such changes affect litigants in person and vulnerable litigants. The latter include children and young adults, immigration detainees, those using English as an additional language, those facing mental health difficulties or who are neuro-diverse, those with alcohol or drug dependencies, and those who are excessively fearful and anxious.

Some of these characteristics can be especially acute among people claiming asylum. Like other jurisdictions, the UK's First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has expedited its roll-out of online procedures which were already underway before the pandemic. Substantive hearing lists were vacated from March to June 2020 and only Case Management Review hearings and immigration bail hearings were heard. These were conducted almost exclusively via telephone, with some hearings heard via video conference (see also Mulcahy, Chapter 3). At the time of writing (October 2020), the prospect of the pandemic continuing to prompt the use of these and similar measures, including for substantive asylum appeals, seems likely as COVID-19 cases are climbing.

I have led a team of researchers over the last several years in an attempt to understand appellants’ experiences of asylum appeal hearings, conducting interviews with asylum appellants as well as legal professionals, and observing appeal processes from the public galleries of hearing rooms in the UK and various other European countries. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 depict a typical hearing room in the UK, with the public seating at the back.

Recently my collaborators and I have written a report entitled Experiencing Asylum Appeals: 34 Ways to Improve Access to Justice at the First-tier Tribunal which examines the experiences of people seeking asylum in the tribunal and suggests reforms (Gill et al, 2020). While not all appellants characterize appeals negatively, the report identifies a series of challenges appellants often encounter in their face-to-face hearings, including confusion, anxiety, mistrust, disrespect, communication difficulties and distraction. Although our research preceded COVID-19, these categories provide a ready framework for analyzing the impact of the recent move towards remote justice.

Confusion

Remote justice could mitigate some sources of confusion described in the Experiencing Asylum Appeals report. One example concerns legal etiquette during hearings. Most of the actors involved in asylum hearings are usually repeat players including the judge, both representatives and the interpreter.