The Times - UK (2020-10-17)

(Antfer) #1

the times | Saturday October 17 2020 2GM 19


News


Ben Ellery, Jonathan Ames


Two brothers whose immigration law


firm earned thousands of pounds filing


dozens of bogus asylum claims are still


allowed to practise, an investigation by


The Times can reveal.


Malik Mohammed Nazeer, 49, and


Malik Mohammed Saleem, 55, “facili-


tated the abuse of litigation” by bring-


ing tactical judicial reviews designed to


prevent claimants from being removed


from the UK.


A disciplinary tribunal heard that


Malik & Malik, their firm based in Wil-


lesden, northwest London, made 35


claims on behalf of asylum seekers that


were certified “totally without merit”.


The disclosure comes after Priti Patel,


the home secretary, said this month that


she would bring in legislation to stop


“endless legal claims” from people


refused asylum. In a speech to the Con-


servative Party conference she also de-


nounced “lefty lawyers” and “do-good-


ers” and promised the “biggest overhaul


of our asylum system in decades”.


One of the brothers’ clients, an Alba-


nian, claimed he could not return home


because his father had been murdered


and his family wanted him to exact re-


venge against his will. The tribunal


heard that he walked into a police sta-


tion “and claimed asylum, saying he


wanted to bring his family to the UK so


that they could claim benefits”.


Despite being told by a judge that the


claim was “bound to fail”, the firm


pressed ahead. When their claim failed


they lodged a judicial review.


Another client, a woman from Alge-


ria, claimed asylum on the basis of a re-


lationship with a British national. She


had no evidence of a relationship and


the Home Office said her case was un-


founded. Her removal was cancelled


when the firm filed a judicial review,


only for a judge to find the case was “to-


tally without merit”.


Another client, a failed asylum seek-


er who had been in the country illegally


for 15 years, was detained when he was


arrested for a crime. The firm put in a


judicial review that failed. They


claimed that they were not acting for


the claimant but their address was on


the man’s application form.


The tribunal found that Saleem, as


partner in charge of the immigration


department and “the more culpable of


the two”, recklessly failed to warn two


clients that any claims they brought


would be “bound to fail and/or out of


time”, and was “manifestly incompe-


tent” in one case. He “had put unargua-


ble points before the court and in doing


so had wasted his clients’ money and


court time”.


At a hearing in 2017 Nazeer was fined


£20,000 and conditions were placed on


his practice. Last year a judge rejected


an appeal against the decision. Nazeer


has since described it as “proportion-
ate”. Saleem was given an 18-month
suspension as well as identical practice
restrictions once the suspension ends.
The Times has established that the
brothers are still licensed by the Solici-
tors Regulation Authority (SRA). They
live in gated semi-detached houses and

have high-end cars with personalised
numberplates.
Saleem claimed to The Times that he
had entrusted a junior lawyer with
processing “litigant in person” asylum
cases for applicants who did not have
enough money to pay for full represen-
tation in courts. He said: “I trusted this

lawyer, ‘Person A’, who I had worked
with for several years previously.”
Nazeer now works at Newgate Solici-
tors in Barnet, north London. There is
no suggestion of any wrongdoing by
Newgate, or by Nazeer in his role with
them. The Times does not suggest any
ongoing wrongdoing by Saleem.

I


t is unfair to blame a
cohort of “lefty
lawyers” for thwarting
deportation orders by
submitting late judicial
review applications.
Of course, there are
some bad apples. When I
was sitting a few lawyers
had coached appellants to
lie about their age, to say
they were gay, to engage
in sham marriages and,
in asylum cases, to say
they had come from, say,
Afghanistan when in

reality they had come
from over the border in
Pakistan.
But such is the
superficial consideration
by some overworked and
undertrained Home
Office case workers that
sometimes a judicial
review is necessary to
stop a terrified appellant
being sent back to a
despotic regime.
In rare cases it is open
to a judge to report that
solicitor to the Solicitors
Regulation Authority
(SRA) where, after a
hearing before a
disciplinary tribunal, an
errant solicitor may be

fined, suspended from
practice or struck off.
Only 2 per cent of cases
in the past three years
before the Solicitors
Disciplinary Tribunal
have involved
immigration solicitors.
That could indicate a lack
of enforcement, but it
also indicates that the
perceived problem is
exaggerated.
There are many
devoted and professional
immigration solicitors
working for peanuts as
legal aid has been
withdrawn. They are
navigating constipated
and ever-changing

domestic and
international law.
The answer, I
respectfully suggest, is
not to shout from the
rooftops about alleged
bent lawyers. Instead, a
solution may be to
restore legal aid, speed up
slow decision making by
the Home Office, remove
failed asylum seeker
appellants promptly and
welcome the genuine
ones who have risked all
to seek sanctuary here.
James Hanratty is a
former immigration judge
and author of The
Making of an
Immigration Judge

James Hanratty


Comment


Solicitor struck off for taking money from destitute asylum seeker


Jonathan Ames Legal Editor


Ben Ellery


Bogus claim lawyers still active


Nazeer said: “At the time, High Court
Justice Lavender made the analogy that
it’s like you were turning a blind eye, like
a Tesco lady at the checkout who lets
the item through without scanning it.
“I thought [the ruling] was a bit oner-
ous. Person A was three years past qual-
ified. Because we were the owners of
the company, that’s why the court went
heavy on us. I think the sentence I had
was a bit harsh in comparison to what
has happened since.”
The Times can also reveal that in the
past three years the SRA has taken 11
solicitors to the Solicitors Disciplinary
Tribunal (SDT) over misconduct in im-
migration. This has led to six strike-offs,
two suspensions and fines of £48,000.
Matters have included sham marriages
and making applications that had no
merit to try to delay proceedings.
Writing in The Times, James Hanrat-
ty, a former immigration judge, said al-
though most lawyers acted properly,
there were some “bad apples”.
The SRA said: “We take all reports se-
riously. Immigration cases have result-
ed in severe sanctions at SDT.”
An analysis by The Times found that
thousands of failed immigration cases
were deemed “totally without merit”.
In the past five years, 11,627 cases were
refused for review for this reason. In the
same period the Home Office said 8,
claims were “clearly unfounded”.
The Times has obtained figures de-
tailing how much lawyers have re-
ceived in legal aid from the Ministry of
Justice over the past three years. The
top ten firms received £45.6 million in
legal aid for immigration work. Duncan
Lewis received £19.7 million while Wil-
sons Solicitors and Barnes Harrild and
Dyer received £3.7 million each.
There is no suggestion that they have
engaged in malpractice and almost all
asylum seekers and refugees will be
without funds and be reliant on legal
aid to pursue their claims.
Last month it was revealed that staff
at Duncan Lewis travelled to Calais and
offered support to refugees hoping to
reach Britain.
Duncan Lewis said: “The fees that we
receive are predominantly cases that
are paid by way of a fixed fee on a remu-
neration rate that is set by the govern-
ment which, despite inflation and rising
operational costs, has not been in-
creased in real terms in over 20 years.”
Chris Philp, the minister for immi-
gration compliance and the courts,
said: “We are determined to fix the bro-
ken asylum system and introduce a new
system that is firmer and fairer. It will be
fair and compassionate towards those
who need our help and welcome people
through safe and legal routes. But it will
also be firm, to stop the abuse of the
system. We will expedite the removal of
those who have no legitimate claim for
protection.”
Rogue solicitors should be struck off,
leading article, page 31

A solicitor at the firm that received the


most in legal aid fees for immigration


cases over the past three years dishon-


estly siphoned thousands of pounds


from a vulnerable asylum seeker.


Keisha Hackett, 44, was struck off the


roll of solicitors over her behaviour


while she was a consultant at Duncan


Lewis Solicitors.


An investigation by the profession’s


regulator revealed that Ms Hackett, a


junior solicitor, told an asylum seeker to


pay £2,400 into her personal bank ac-


count even though it was likely that he
was eligible for legal aid. The Solicitors
Disciplinary Tribunal found that Ms
Hackett told the asylum seeker,
referred to as Client A, to use borrowed
money to pay her directly.
At the beginning of the year, a tribu-
nal banned Ms Hackett from the pro-
fession and ordered her to pay costs of
£14,375. In its ruling, the tribunal judges
said that the lawyer’s actions in the case
were for her personal gain and “had
been deliberate and calculated”.
The tribunal added that Ms Hackett
“had taken advantage of Client A who,
as an asylum seeker and with very little

knowledge of the legal system, had
been an inherently vulnerable person”.
According to the judgment, Ms
Hackett made “catastrophic” decisions,
failed to act with integrity and acted
dishonestly. It said that the solicitor
“had known full well what she was do-
ing and that she had taken Client A’s
money and placed it in her own unpro-
tected account for her own benefit.. .”
Doing so, said the tribunal, contra-
vened Ms Hackett’s consultancy agree-
ment with Duncan Lewis.
The tribunal heard evidence from the
asylum seeker that the failure to assess
accurately his eligibility for legal aid

caused him to incur a significant finan-
cial burden. To finance his asylum
application and subsequent appeal he
was forced to borrow money from
friends and family members.
Ms Hackett, admitted to the solici-
tors’ profession in 2016, had provided
consultancy legal services to Duncan
Lewis through her own company called
Hackett Law, which Companies House
records show was dissolved at the end
of January after she was struck off.
The tribunal heard mitigation from
Ms Hackett that at the time she was
handling the asylum seeker’s claim she
had been involved in “traumatic per-

sonal circumstances” after separating
from her husband.
Companies House records show that
Duncan Lewis recorded a revenue over
the past year of more than £27 million,
an increase of £5 million since 2015.
A spokesman for the firm said: “We
do not condone Ms Hackett’s conduct.
As soon as we became aware of the
matter in late 2017, we conducted an
internal investigation, terminated our
professional relationship with Ms
Hackett, fully reimbursed the client
and, in accordance with our regulatory
obligations, promptly reported the
matter to our regulatory body.”

SWNS FOR THE TIMES

times investigation


The firm of Malik Mohammed Saleem, left, and his brother, Nazeer, made claims that were certified “totally without merit”

Free download pdf