All African Women’s Group and Women Against Rape, May 2026

Executive Summary

This submission is made jointly by All African Women’s Group (AAWG) and Women Against Rape (WAR). We oppose proposals which reduce appeal rights, accelerate appeals, create a single appeal route, or weaken the independence of immigration appeals. Our experience supporting women asylum seekers demonstrates that the problem is not the fact that people have the right to appeal but the collapse of access to legal aid, expert evidence and because there is no consideration of the impact of trauma on women seeking asylum.

Introduction

AAWG and WAR work with women seeking asylum who have survived rape, domestic violence, trafficking, forced marriage and other violence. The evidence in this submission is drawn from our work helping women asylum seekers defend their rights to protection and safety.

Key Recommendations

• Restore legal aid at all stages of the asylum process.
• Reverse the exclusion of Article 8 cases from legal aid.
• Ensure access to expert psychological and country evidence.
• Reject a single appeal route and a fast-track appeal procedures.
• Retain independent appeals and reject any in-house Home Office appeals body.
• Implement the “Gender issues in the asylum claim” guidelines which recognise the impact of trauma and the discrimination and stigma that women may face.

1. The Legal Aid Crisis: A Barrier to Fair Appeals

The consultation asks how fair access to legal advice, representation and support can be ensured. The answer is already known: a properly funded, functioning and independent legal aid system.

Without legal representation, women who have survived rape and other violence are frequently unable to present their cases effectively and are wrongly refused asylum. The lack legal aid for lawyers to thoroughly prepare cases when women are traumatised and commission expert evidence where needed, undermines the fairness of the entire appeals process.

AAWG and WAR have consistently found severe shortages of legal aid lawyers, long delays in obtaining representation, inability to change inadequate representatives, and barriers to obtaining expert reports. Even after legal aid rate increases, women continue to struggle to find representation.

2. Experience of Immigration Legal Advice

Women regularly spend months or years searching for legal aid lawyers. Some proceed through asylum interviews and appeals without any lawyer at all. Others are refused adjournments despite being unable to secure representation.

Case evidence collected by AAWG and WAR shows that women often rely on community organisations to locate lawyers. Many are unable to use English confidently, lack internet access, or cannot afford travel costs while trying to find representation. These barriers directly affect the quality of evidence available to decision-makers.

3. Early Legal Advice

Early legal advice is essential because asylum is a legal process from the outset. Evidence gathered at screening interviews can be relied upon later to refuse claims.

We see from our collective self-help case work sessions that many women do not know that rape, domestic violence, forced marriage or trafficking can form the basis of an asylum claim. We work to help women understand how their experiences fit within asylum law but for their claim to be properly presented means a lawyer must have the time and resources to thoroughly understand and present the woman’s experiences and need for protection.

If women don’t get good legal advice at an early stage of their claim this makes it harder to speak about all they have suffered.  This in turn means that they may delay in disclosing their experiences and so crucial evidence isn’t presented, leading to a likely refusal. Women are often forced into appealing or even making fresh claims because they did not receive appropriate help when their cases first began.

4. Addressing trauma and vulnerability

Trauma and vulnerability cannot be fairly assessed without legal representation and access to expert psychological evidence. The impact of trauma on memory, disclosure and credibility must be recognised throughout the system.

Current processes frequently fail to account for shame, fear and the effects of rape and other violence. Women are often expected to disclose traumatic experiences immediately, despite well-established evidence that trauma can delay disclosure.

The principles established in relevant case law and vulnerability guidance should be fully implemented in both Home Office decision-making and appeals.

5. Expert Evidence

Psychological and country expert evidence is critical in cases involving rape and gender-based violence. Research conducted through AAWG and WAR casework has shown that women with expert evidence are significantly more likely to succeed in their appeals.

Access to expert evidence is dependent upon access to legal aid. Women who cannot obtain funding are frequently denied the evidence needed to explain trauma, delayed disclosure, risk on return and country conditions.

We oppose proposals suggesting reliance on shared expert materials. Independent expert evidence remains essential to challenge inaccurate or biased Home Office country information.

6. Hearing Formats

Paper hearings are deeply problematic because decision-makers cannot assess vulnerability, communication difficulties or the impact of trauma effectively.

Our experience of virtual hearings is overwhelmingly negative. Women have been required to discuss rape and sexual violence remotely, often without adequate support. This increases distress and undermines the quality of evidence.

In-person hearings provide important safeguards, including better communication, improved recognition of vulnerability and opportunities for support. Women should also be able to attend hearings with supporters from their community.

7. Appeal Rights and Fast Tracking of Claims

We are extremely concerned by proposals linking accelerated appeals and reduced appeal rights to increased removals.

Appeals have increased because initial decision-making has deteriorated, not because appellants are abusing the system. In our experience, rape and sexual violence are often not taken seriously, trauma is poorly understood and expert evidence is increasingly unavailable due to the legal aid crisis.

Appeals are frequently the first point at which women have a realistic opportunity to obtain a fair hearing because they come up in front of a judge who has legal training and is accountable for the decisions they make. Restricting appeals risks increasing wrongful refusals and removals.

8. Exceptions and Safeguards

Exceptions to deadlines must be available for victims of rape, trafficking, domestic violence and other forms of gender-based violence.

Courts must recognise the practical difficulties faced by women attempting to obtain legal representation and expert evidence. No woman should be disadvantaged because she has been unable to find a legal aid lawyer.

Fast track procedures should never be used unless legal representation, expert evidence and vulnerability safeguards are guaranteed.

9. Accountability and Transparency

We are deeply concerned by proposals to create an in-house Home Office appeals body. Independent appeals exist to scrutinise Home Office decision-making and protect against political influence.

There isn’t information publicly available currently about the outcomes of appeal hearings in relation to gender, race, lack of or presence of legal representation and other disparities. If we don’t know whether discrimination is embedded in the present system how can the proposed reforms be assessed?

Conclusion

The central issue throughout this consultation is the collapse of access to legal aid. Without adequate funding, access to expert evidence and recognition of the impact of rape, domestic violence, trafficking and trauma, the appeals system cannot function fairly.

Proposals to increase efficiency through reduced appeal rights, accelerated timelines and alternative hearing formats risk compounding injustice rather than addressing its causes.

AAWG and WAR therefore urge the Government to reject proposals that weaken appeal rights and instead prioritise access to justice, legal representation, independent scrutiny and trauma-informed decision-making.