The High Court is ruling today on the legality of a Home Office policy which allows the speedy deportation of foreign nationals refused permission to remain in the UK.
Medical Justice, which provides independent medical and legal advice to detainees in immigration removal centres, argues the practice of deporting “with little or no notice” is unlawful and must be struck down.
A key allegation is that immigration officers have used it to swoop late at night and escort people to flights leaving only a few hours later, depriving them of the chance to speak to a lawyer and launch last-ditch challenges to removal.
Home Office lawyers argued at a hearing at London’s High Court last month that the policy was “sufficiently flexible” to ensure there were no human rights breaches, and that detainees were given as much notice as possible. Dinah Rose QC, appearing for Medical Justice, told Mr Justice Silber there was a general Home Office practice of giving those facing deportation 72 hours notice of removal directions.
But an “exceptions policy”, introduced in March 2007 and widened in January this year, created categories in which an individual was given little or no notice. The policy applied to cases where medical reports indicated that serving removal directions would create a risk of a detainee attempting suicide or self harm. It also applied where the Home Secretary believed 72-hour notification was “not in the best interests” of unaccompanied children, who could not be detained before removal and posed a risk of absconding.
It also covered cases where it was believed notifying an individual risked another being harmed, such as the individual’s child – or reduced notice was necessary “to maintain order and discipline” at a detention centre. Ms Rose argued that the reduced notice period interfered with “the constitutional right of access to justice”, and the Government had acted “ultra vires”, or outside its powers.
The policy could not be rationally justified, said Ms Rose. It also violated several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 5(4), which gives a person a right to have their detention reviewed by a court or independent tribunal, and Article 6, which safeguards the right to a fair trial. Ms Rose said the Home Secretary was failing to have regard to duties under the 1971 Race Relations Act and 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.
The QC told the judge: “If they are going to truncate notice, the only lawful way to do so is to have very clear and specific safeguards to ensure there is no case in which a person would be placed at risk of a violation of their human rights or persecution because they had not been able to gain access to the courts.
“The Government’s policy does not achieve that.”
Be the first to comment