Akram & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Legal representatives conducting judicial review proceedings owe a paramount duty to the court. The court may use its inherent jurisdiction to address serious or systemic failures in immigration litigation, including concerns about the solicitor-client relationship where court processes may have been abused for personal gain.

An application drafted by a trainee or caseworker must be scrutinised by an experienced lawyer. A statement of truth signed in that lawyer’s name must accurately reflect personal ownership and responsibility. Remedial assurances do not prevent referral to, or investigation by, the Solicitors Regulation Authority where serious concerns remain.

Two brothers sought permission to apply for judicial review after unsuccessful immigration and asylum proceedings. Permission had been refused on paper by Jay J, who described the claim as wholly without merit and directed their solicitors, Rashid and Rashid, to explain the preparation of the claim.

The solicitors initially failed to comply. They later apologised and proposed remedial measures. Concerns remained about the unauthorised preparation and filing of grounds, the principal solicitor’s statement of truth, and an alleged promise of experienced counsel despite reliance on an inexperienced caseworker. The Divisional Court considered whether those matters justified action under its inherent jurisdiction and referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

1. Conduct of representatives. The court reiterated that legal representatives’ paramount duty is to the court. It may take a proactive approach under its inherent jurisdiction where hopeless or unprofessionally prepared immigration judicial reviews waste court resources and risk disadvantaging properly prepared cases.
2. Statements of truth and supervision. A statement of truth is substantive. An application drafted by a trainee or caseworker must be overseen by an experienced lawyer, and the statement of truth must accurately show that the lawyer has taken ownership and responsibility for the facts and matters stated. This applies to all applications to the High Court, not only ex parte applications.
3. Client protection. Although the solicitor-client relationship is ordinarily contractual and outside the court’s intervention, it may fall within the court’s legitimate concern where representatives may be incentivised to misuse court processes for personal gain. Vulnerable immigration clients may be particularly exposed where fees are taken on a promise of expert representation which is not delivered.
4. Disposition. The court took account of the apologies and proposed remedial steps, but held that they did not remove the need for a full and proper Solicitors Regulation Authority investigation. It directed that the judgment and court-file documents be sent to the Authority. The court made no finding of fact on the unresolved client-fee complaint.

First-instance proceedings in the Divisional Court concerning the conduct of solicitors in preparing an immigration judicial review application. The judgment describes the earlier refusal of permission by Jay J but gives no citation for that order.