The system of civil penalties is designed to encourage employers to comply with their obligations; it places a positive burden on them to checking their employees and monitoring them before and throughout their employment. It is of course in line with the forthcoming changes to duties of landlords, in checking the ID of their tenants, perhaps demonstrating a similar line in Government policy, shifting responsibility and imposing duties and penalties for those who fail.
This paper provides a short introduction to the scheme and looks at how we can react to it for our clients (i.e. objecting to and/or appealing penalties, either quashing them or at least reducing them).
View the paper here
Dispute Resolution analysis: Adam Pipe, barrister at No.8 Chambers, considers the decision in R v Bakhtiyar and says it will now be more difficult to challenge government lawyers' chargeable rates by comparison.
R (on the application of Bakhtiyar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR  UKUT 519 (IAC),  All ER (D) 97 (Sep)
The claimant challenged the order that he pay the defendant Secretary of State her costs of £400 for acknowledgement of service (AoS) and summary grounds. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT), in dismissing the application, gave guidance on the application of the indemnity principle to the Secretary of State and the Government Legal Department (GLD). It then held that there was 'not the remotest scope' for the argument that £200 per hour was an unreasonably high rate.
View pdf here