Dr. Jo Hynes Published: 27th September 2024 The Ministry of Justice urgently needs to conduct further research and develop best practice guidance for the use of remote legal advice, PLP’s new report warns. Read the report Since “legal aid deserts” have left many in the immigration and asylum system unable to access legal help, the Legal Aid Agency has suggested that in some contexts, remote advice could help link people up with providers. But this under-researched solution could create new problems and put people seeking asylum at risk of harm unless best practice guidelines are developed, according to new research from Public Law Project (PLP), in partnership with A & M Consultancy, Helen Bamber Foundation and Asylum Aid. PLP’s Dr. Jo Hynes says: “While remote advice could be more convenient in some scenarios, it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution to the immigration legal aid crisis. Wherever possible, refugees and people seeking asylum need to have a say in how they speak to their legal representatives. “Remote advice might not be appropriate for sharing difficult or traumatic details, especially when so many people in the asylum system already feel so isolated and struggle with trusting strangers. If they’re in an environment with no privacy, they might not want to share crucial information on the phone.” By speaking to people with experience of remote and in-person advice, researchers found that these experiences varied widely based on circumstances. Some were able to access remote advice in terms of their technical capabilities and access to a quiet, private space, but the complexity or emotional weight of their case meant that it was potentially harmful for them to receive advice remotely. “I want to stress that for people who are seeking asylum and were in the mental state that I was, face to face is crucial,” said one interviewee, who also stated that remote advice “has a very negative impact on [the] mental health of people.” Other people seeking asylum may find remote advice beneficial: for example, if they have a medical condition that makes it difficult for them to travel. But a lack of technical skills, resources or confidence may mean that it is not accessible to them. PLP’s Dr. Jo Hynes says: “Remote advice is not a safe harbour in an ocean of unmet need, but one intrinsically connected to the wider systemic issues facing the legal aid sector.” Much remains unclear about the use of remote advice: We do not know the impact of delivering advice remotely on a broader range of services, including providers in both urban and rural areas. There is no evidence on its impact on clients’ outcomes. We have no clear data on what circumstances and demographic characteristics make remote advice accessible or beneficial – or which groups would find it completely inaccessible. There is no established best practice guidance. PLP recommends that the Ministry of Justice conduct or commission further and updated research into the above, as well as developing best practice guidance. Giving clients a meaningful and informed choice about the mode of advice delivery is also vital for clients to be able to weigh up whether remote or in-person advice was appropriate in their specific circumstances. ‘Remote immigration and asylum advice: what we know and what we need to know’