Rwanda Plan to Cost UK £1.8m for Each Asylum Seeker
Rishi Sunak’s flagship plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will cost taxpayers £1.8m for each of the first 300 people the government deports to Kigali, Whitehall’s official spending watchdog has disclosed.
The overall cost of the scheme stands at more than half a billion pounds, according to the figures released to the National Audit Office. Even if the UK sends nobody to the central African state, Sunak has signed up to pay £370m from the public purse over the five-year deal. The disclosures follow nearly three years of refusals by prime ministers, home secretaries and senior Home Office staff to explain the full costs of the deal, citing “commercial confidentiality”.
So far, no asylum seeker has been sent to Rwanda, because of repeated challenges to the scheme under European and UK laws.
Diana Johnson, the chair of the home affairs select committee, expressed her shock at the final figures and expressed serious concerns at the lack of transparency.
Read more: Rajeev Syal, Guardian, https://shorturl.at/aenu8
"No Such Thing As Justice Here"
Criminalisation of People Arriving to the UK on 'Small Boats'
An important new report published by Border Criminologies and the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford details how asylum seekers crossing the Channel on small boats are being arrested and imprisoned in the UK. It finds significant procedural and legal injustices are occurring in courts in Kent.
The report draws on wide-ranging research and analysis, but the primary source of data comes from physically observing over 100 court hearings in magistrates' and Crown courts in Kent. This is supplemented and corroborated through interviews with lawyers and interpreters working on the cases. It is further informed by the direct testimonies of four people with personal experience of being criminalised for their arrival in the UK.
A helpful introductory chapter considers the legal framework behind the arrests and the new offences under the Immigration Act 1971 of 'illegal arrival' in the UK and the facilitation of illegal arrival that were brought in by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA).
Read more: EIN, https://shorturl.at/yLOST
Foreign Criminals to be Offered Deportation Instead of Prosecution
Justice Secretary Alex Chalk has revealed plans that to offer ‘conditional cautions’ to low level offenders, where they will be deported from the UK instead of facing trial. This plan aspires to relieve the pressure on both overcrowded prisons, and reduce the court backlog. The proposal, supported by policing minister Chris Philp, seeks to deport offenders without convicting them. This has generated criticism that it violates the human rights of prisoners and that the right to a fair trial is being limited to those born in the UK only. Chalk acknowledged that many of these prisoners have families in the UK from whom they do not wish to be forcibly separated.
Source: William Lloyd, Justicd Gap, https://shorturl.at/uyV15
Sunak’s Asylum Laws Trapping 55,000 People in ‘Perma-Backlog
Rishi Sunak’s asylum laws have introduced a “perma-backlog” of up to 55,000 people who cannot have their claims processed and risk being left indefinitely in taxpayer-funded temporary accommodation, according to a new report.
The Institute for Public Policy Research said that anyone arriving in the UK via irregular means after 20 July 2023 cannot have their claim processed and instead will be removed to their home country or to a third country such as Rwanda following the introduction of the Illegal Migration Act. At the same time, pre-existing laws mean that irregular arrivals since 7 March 2023 cannot be given permission to stay. Reports suggest that these claims are also on hold, the thinktank said. The report says it is highly doubtful the small country of Rwanda will ever be able to accept tens of thousands of people.
Marley Morris, associate director for migration at IPPR, said: “Chaos in the Home Office has led to tens of thousands of asylum seekers stuck in a perma-backlog, unable to get on with their lives and costing the taxpayer millions. This was an entirely predictable outcome of the Illegal Migration Act. The only way to escape this situation is for the Home Office to start processing claims.”
Read more: Rajeev Syal , Guarian, https://shorturl.at/jlv39
Mental Health Challenges Faced by Asylum Seekers and Refugees
A report published last week by the Mental Health Foundation provides a very comprehensive look at the mental health of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK.
The report highlights how asylum seekers and refugees are at particular risk of mental health problems, which may develop as a result of their experiences in their countries of origin, during their journeys, or after they arrive in the UK.
"The complex and unique challenges they have often faced, and continue to face, means that asylum seekers and refugees are more likely to experience poor mental health than the general population. This includes higher rates of PTSD, depression, and anxiety disorders," the report explains.
Read more: EIN, https://shorturl.at/bdSZ0
|
Dozens of foreign staff have had to leave and new specialists can’t be brought in, says a group representing aid agencies
Israel has stopped issuing visas for international staff of humanitarian organisations that work in occupied Palestinian territories, hampering efforts to get food and other vital supplies into Gaza.
Dozens of foreign aid workers, including heads of organisations, have had to leave Israel and the Palestinian territories, or are overstaying their visas and risking deportation so they can continue working, an alliance of aid groups has warned.
Emergency response teams, who have the specialist experience to deal with the multiple challenges of working in Gaza, are particularly affected, said Faris Arouri, director of the Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA), an umbrella group representing aid groups operating in the West Bank and Gaza.
Tell your MP: Stop Electronic Monitoring of Asylum Seekers/Migrants
Since November 2020, the Home Office has been using invasive GPS technology to monitor the location of non-British citizens on immigration bail, including asylum seekers and many born or raised in the UK.
And, as usual, private companies, including Capita PLC and Serco Group PLC, are profiting from it.
People’s lives hang in the balance, as hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money, change hands to digitise the hostile environment.
The government is monitoring people 24/7 with GPS technology. Since 2020, the Home Office has been forcing people without British citizenship on to electronic tags, including people seeking asylum, and people born or raised in the UK.
The government has given outsourcing giant Capita millions in public money to implement this cruel campaign of mass surveillance. Now Serco— notorious for failure and abuse will profit a further £200m from continuing this practice.
Why we need you to take action: People’s lives hang in the balance, as millions of pounds in cruel corporate-government contracts change hands. GPS tracking has been shown to be extremely dangerous for health and human rights. There’s no good reason to put anyone through psychological torture. Write to your MP now to demand an end to this cruel practice!
Show your solidarity by writing to your MP to stop GPS tagging.
Source: Bail for Immigration Detainees
Providing free legal advice, information and representation to thousands of people held in detention across the UK.
Shamima Begum Loses Bid to Regain UK Citizenship
Dominic Casciani, BBC, home and legal correspondent
Shamima Begum has lost an appeal against a decision to revoke her UK citizenship. The Court of Appeal ruling means the 24-year-old must remain in Syria. The government stripped her citizenship on national security grounds in 2019. Ms Begum left London nine years ago aged 15 to travel to Syria and join Islamic State group, or IS.
The ruling by three appeal judges was unanimous. It could still be challenged in the Supreme Court by Ms Begum. Her solicitor Daniel Furner said that her legal team was "not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home". However the judges wholly dismissed all of Ms Begum's arguments - a highly significant rejection that could affect her ability to gain a full appeal at the Supreme Court.
The Full judgement is Below
Shamima Begum v Home Secretary
The challenge has been raised in closed and, in the absence of any concession by the Secretary of State that the arguments can be put in open, the point must remain in closed at least for the moment. The Special Advocates were entitled to raise this point. They can reasonably assert that this ground of challenge, even if notionally available to the open legal team, only really emerged with clear sight of the […] evidence and the closed national security statements dealing with it. Clear sight of the evidence is not, of course, possible for the appellant's open legal team. The Secretary of State should consider, however, whether this part of our closed judgment can be put in open in whole or in part.
I do not consider that there has been any error of law by SIAC. The post-decision evidence, taken together and at its highest, did not require the matter to be referred back to the Secretary of State. […] The evidence as a whole does support the original assessment. The threshold for referral back to the Secretary of State was not met (applying U3 at first instance and on appeal, and B4). […]
Further, I accept Sir James' submission that there is no sharp dividing line between national security factors on the one hand and non-national security factors on the other. The various factors which are taken into account in reaching a decision (or keeping it under review) cannot be separated in that way (and SIAC was correct so to decide, see […] of the closed judgment). Section 40 requires an assessment to be made of whether deprivation is conducive to the public good (which assessment was in this case made by the Secretary of State, on advice from officials, on 19 February 2019); and that decision must be subject to ongoing review, requiring referral back to the Secretary of State if the original decision is undermined or materially altered by post-decision evidence.
I am satisfied that the Security Service possesses the required skill and expertise to keep the matter under review in this way. Paragraph 19 of the minors' policy does not suggest otherwise, when given a fair reading in context, and recognising that the assessment is in reality likely to involve multiple agencies and individuals. I would accept that the ongoing review must itself be holistic, taking account of all relevant factors and post-decision evidence, including evidence which relates to the reasons for the person having left the UK to join ISIL and any lack of volition in doing so. […] the Security Service was alive to such matters and to the fact that the appellant was a minor when she travelled to Syria, and was well aware that issues such as lack of voluntariness and immaturity were important in the overall assessment of her case.
If there were any doubt about the Security Service's competence to keep the decision under review, the Home Office's involvement throughout the period after the decision until the appeal to SIAC resolves that doubt in the Secretary of State's favour. If the Home Office had considered that the matter should be referred back to the Secretary of State, the Home Office (or its officials) would doubtless have said so.
The entirety of the pre- and post-decision material was anyway put before SIAC as part of the appeal process. If SIAC considered that the decision was no longer justified, it would have said so. SIAC considered the various points listed at paragraph […] of the Special Advocates' skeleton […]. SIAC's view was that the Security Service's assessment, maintained in the closed national security statements, was rational and should be upheld. I agree with that view. Further and in any event, I am not persuaded that any of these pieces of information are particularly significant taken individually or together, nor that they were overlooked in the ongoing review.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/152.html
|