Refugees and asylum seekers don't all have aid

[Hazir]

The point that is being missed in this discussion is that not every appeal is done through representation by a lawyer. And tbh; a 50% reversal is horrendous. Not so-so, not bad, but horrendous. It does indeed show that the Home Office is out to screw people out of their rights OR the Home Office employs people who aren't fit for the job. (My experiences with British officialdom would lead me to believe the second option is very very possible).

If I would have such an abysmal success rate I'd be out on my ass post haste. And for those who don't know it; my work ends in letters that tell people which court to go to if they don't like what they just read.

[RandBlade]

The point that is being missed in this discussion is that not every appeal is done through representation by a lawyer. And tbh; a 50% reversal is horrendous. Not so-so, not bad, but horrendous. It does indeed show that the Home Office is out to screw people out of their rights OR the Home Office employs people who aren't fit for the job. (My experiences with British officialdom would lead me to believe the second option is very very possible).

If I would have such an abysmal success rate I'd be out on my ass post haste. And for those who don't know it; my work ends in letters that tell people which court to go to if they don't like what they just read.

It's not a 50% reversal. It's not even close to that. It's not 50% of all decisions get reversed, it is 49% of appealed cases that get reversed. What that doesn't say is what percentage of decisions get appealed.

If you make 225 decisions in a year and half of them get appealed and of that half that got appealed 25% get reversed then the proportion of your cases that gets reversed is 12.5%.
If you make 225 decisions in a year and 4% of them get appealed and of that 4% half get reversed then the proportion of your cases that gets reversed is 2%.

All else being equal I'd rather be in the latter position than the former.

[Hazir]

It's not a 50% reversal. It's not even close to that. It's not 50% of all decisions get reversed, it is 49% of appealed cases that get reversed. What that doesn't say is what percentage of decisions get appealed.

If you make 225 decisions in a year and half of them get appealed and of that half that got appealed 25% get reversed then the proportion of your cases that gets reversed is 12.5%.
If you make 225 decisions in a year and 4% of them get appealed and of that 4% half get reversed then the proportion of your cases that gets reversed is 2%.

All else being equal I'd rather be in the latter position than the former.

It would be so nice if you wouldn't try to explain me my own job. I was of course talking of appealed cases. And having half of them reversed is a percentage so high that I don't even understand how the responsible ministers don't resign.

Also, if I would think a decision has a one in two chances of being overturned (that's appearantly a real category) I would think twice about putting my signature to it. A reversal rate hitting double digits would make me loose faith in my own fitness for my job.

[RandBlade]

It would be so nice if you wouldn't try to explain me my own job. I was of course talking of appealed cases. And having half of them reversed is a percentage so high that I don't even understand how the responsible ministers don't resign.

Also, if I would think a decision has a one in two chances of being overturned (that's appearantly a real category) I would think twice about putting my signature to it. A reversal rate hitting double digits would make me loose faith in my own fitness for my job.

Except the decision doesn't have a one in two chance of being overturned. Nor is the reversal rate double-digits even unless over 20% of decisions are getting appealed in the first place.

I've made hundreds of decisions in my role as an employer for the last 13 years. For many of that period I was responsible for over 300 people. The appeal to my decisions is to take them to an employment tribunal and I've made hundreds of decisions over the years and sacked dozens of people but only twice has the decision ever been taken to an employment tribunal (once for sacking someone, once for denying someone a pay rise). I won both cases at tribunal. Had I lost either I wouldn't view it as a resigning matter and I wouldn't think one decision being overturned at tribunal meant I was terrible at my job or reflected the hundreds of other decisions that never got that far.

[Hazir]

Except the decision doesn't have a one in two chance of being overturned. Nor is the reversal rate double-digits even unless over 20% of decisions are getting appealed in the first place.

I've made hundreds of decisions in my role as an employer for the last 13 years. For many of that period I was responsible for over 300 people. The appeal to my decisions is to take them to an employment tribunal and I've made hundreds of decisions over the years and sacked dozens of people but only twice has the decision ever been taken to an employment tribunal (once for sacking someone, once for denying someone a pay rise). I won both cases at tribunal. Had I lost either I wouldn't view it as a resigning matter and I wouldn't think one decision being overturned at tribunal meant I was terrible at my job or reflected the hundreds of other decisions that never got that far.

God, it's really not worth talking to you. Your real life experience as a layman in staffing says exactly nothing about the process revision of administrative decisions in court.