In 2019, the Tribunal and Home Office began piloting a new system for appeals, aiming to promote early review of the evidence and withdrawal of poor-quality decisions, or those where the new evidence and legal arguments suggested the appeal should succeed. In the new model, the Home Office should upload all of its paperwork to a shared platform. The appellant's representatives should respond with all the evidence that they wish to rely on and an Advance Skeleton Argument (ASA). The Home Office should review all of this before the hearing and, if appropriate, withdraw the refusal decision and grant asylum.

This would have been an entirely positive development, except that legal aid payments were not aligned with the in-case demands of the pilot scheme. The barrister had to review all of the papers, then write and submit a skeleton argument as if attending court. If the Home Office decided to grant asylum, the barrister would not get paid because the hearing would not go ahead. The problem was brought to the attention of the LAA, the Home Office and the Tribunal. Barristers from some of the main immigration teams said they would not participate until legal aid funding was amended to fit the new demands. Consultation, through the Civil Contracts Consultative Group, was ongoing and the Group was assured in the March 2020 meeting that: ‘The policy team were keen to take on board the rep bodies’ views and so would consult with them before implementing the changes’ [emphasis added] (CCCG, 2020).

The procedure was suddenly made compulsory in May 2020, apparently in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to deal with more cases remotely. The new scheme did not in itself mean that cases would be heard remotely, but might mean that some would be conceded by the Home Office without a hearing. The pilot data, though not fully evaluated, indicated the Home Office was accepting around 19 per cent of appeals on review. At this stage, however, no amendments had been made to the funding scheme. The President of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Tribunal acknowledged in letters to ILPA that the new procedure created unpaid demands, but that, ‘I hope you will understand that that is not an issue with which the Tribunal can or should be directly concerned’.