|
|
Refugee Legal Centre
Press Briefing
18th March 2003
|
|
The Court of Appeal has today found in favour of six asylum seekers who
claimed that the Home Office acted unlawfully in denying them any means of
supporting themselves.
The Home Office has failed in its bid to overturn the decision of Mr
Justice Collins that it acted unlawfully in denying any means of support to six
asylum seekers in a test case before the Court of Appeal. Section 55 of the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act purports to deny support to many asylum
seekers who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, fail to claim asylum “as
soon as reasonably practicable” (the provision does not apply to families with
minor children or where it can be shown that denial of support will breach
their rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
(the ECHR)).
This new provision follows on from the Secretary of State’s decision on
23 July 2002 to prohibit asylum-seekers from working. Previously, that
prohibition had only lasted for the first six months of any application for
asylum.
The Secretary of State’s interpretation of Section 55 has been very strict. Many asylum seekers have been denied support notwithstanding that they have claimed asylum very shortly after they have arrived in the UK.
Denial of support would have left the six asylum seekers and many others in their position without a roof over their head and without any money to feed themselves. Since they are prevented from working to support themselves, they and many others without family or friends in this country would have been left destitute.
Barry Stoyle, Chief Executive of the Refugee Legal Centre said:
“The Refugee Legal Centre is pleased that the Court of Appeal has
adopted a humane approach to destitute human beings who are prevented from
working to support themselves.”
“There are many reasons why the new provisions have been of particular
concern to us. Aside from the obvious difficulty in surviving without either
state support or the right to support themselves by taking employment, those
who qualify for refugee status will face considerable obstacles in pursuing
their asylum claims and so gaining access to protection. This is because Home
Office systems are not accessible to those without permanent addresses and
money to travel to interviews and make telephone calls.”
“Many of the clients we see are traumatised, and face great
difficulties in recounting their experiences at the best of times. This task is
made more difficult when they are hungry, cold and destitute, and having to
think more of their day to day survival on the streets.”
|
|
Notes
1. Claiming asylum after arrival
There are many justifiable reasons as to why a person may not make a claim immediately on arrival in the UK. For example, asylum seekers who have been tortured by their Government may have a justifiable fear of officialdom and, as Mr Justice Collins held, may understandably fear being removed summarily if they claim asylum immediately on arrival. In addition there is no evidence to suggest that the claims of those who do not claim asylum on arrival are weaker than those who do. Indeed, the Home Office’s own statistics would suggest that in 2001 the reverse was true. Provisional Home Office statistics for that year confirm that of 11,180 grants of asylum, 3,685 were made in respect of claims which were made on arrival and 7,495 were made in respect of claims made subsequently (see Hansard, Commons Written Answers, 21st October 2002).
2. Who decided the case?
The case was decided by a panel of judges presided over by the most senior judge in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips.
2. What the judgment says
It is not commonly appreciated that asylum seekers are prohibited from taking up employment. The Court of Appeal found this fact to be of particular relevance to its consideration of the lawfulness of the Secretary of State’s decision to deny all state support to the individuals in question. In particular the Court of Appeal found that: -
- Asylum seekers who do not claim asylum immediately on arrival should not automatically be denied support
- The system for determining eligibility for state support “was not fair or fairly operated”. The Court noted the Attorney General’s assurance that procedures are being “radically overhauled”.
- It would not be lawful for support to be withheld from an individual who is prevented from working and who has no other means of support where destitution would humiliate or debase the individual showing a lack of respect for, or diminishing, his or her human dignity.