Briefing on the proposed use of Oakington
Reception Centre for processing ‘clearly unfounded’ cases.
The Home Office has informed the Refugee Legal Centre by letter on 7th October
that, immediately following royal assent of the Nationality, Immigration and
Asylum Bill, they propose to use Oakington Reception Centre solely for
processing those cases likely to be certified as ‘clearly unfounded’. Once
certified, these cases will only have a non-suspensive appeal – that is no
appeal from within the UK - and will be removed directly after they receive a
decision at Oakington.
We have also been informed that the ‘clearly unfounded’ certificate will be
attached initially only to the 10 European countries which are due to accede to
the European Union in 2004. These 10 countries are: Poland, Czech Republic,
Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Following royal assent, Oakington will be used exclusively for the processing of
claims from nationals of these countries.
The Refugee Legal Centre believes that the ‘fast track’ procedure operating
at Oakington Reception Centre, where an asylum claim is decided within a 7-10
day period, is not appropriate for the processing of claims that are likely to
be certified ‘clearly unfounded’ and therefore have no in-country right of
appeal. The reasons for this are as follows:
A.
Poor Quality of Decision Making on Oakington cases
The following are examples extracted from Refusal Letters served on RLC clients
processed through Oakington :
For a Kosovan who still maintained a fear from Serbs and Serb sympathisers:
“The Secretary of State does not condone any violations which may have been
committed by members of the Serb forces in FRY (Kosovo). He considers that these
actions arise from failures of discipline and supervision and he does not accept
that they are evidence of persecution within the terms of the United Nations
Convention”. (06/04/02)
For a Zimbabwean client after the Government had suspended returns :
"….., the situation in Zimbabwe is much calmer overall and the police and
security forces are maintaining law and order. He (the Secretary of State) is
aware that the prosecution of people for such violent crimes, is actively
pursued through the courts. He also considers that this provides evidence that
the Zanu PF do not have an element of impunity about them and recourse is
available.”
(31/01/02)
For a client who has subsequently been described by a doctor at the Medical
Foundation for Victims of Torture as ‘one of the worst rape cases I have come
across’ and who was distressed throughout her Home Office interview:
“More importantly, if your husband really was abducted by soldiers who beat
and raped you, you should have been able to state clearly when this event
occurred. The Secretary of State does not believe that these events occurred as
claimed by you.”
And in the same letter :
“If you were upset because you were placed in Oakington, this may be because
you paid an agent a large sum of money to facilitate your journey to the Untied
Kingdom and were not expecting your asylum claim to be processed so quickly in
this way.”
(31/08/2002)
For a client who travelled with a false passport provided by an agent:
“He (the Secretary of State) concludes therefore that the passport you used
to travel on was indeed yours and that you gave your account (of the pp being
false) in order to cover up your true identity”
Thereafter in certifying the claim :
“In addition the S of S certifies that your claim is one to which 9(3)(a) of
Schedule 4 to the IAA ’99 applies owing to your failure to produce a valid pp
when required to do so on arrival without giving a reasonable explanation for
that failure.”
There are numerous examples of incorrect references to countries of origin. One
Refusal letter contains 2 pages on the situation in the Czech Republic when the
client was from Poland. Another letter simply states after the usual preamble
“STANDARD WORDINGS SHOULD APPEAR HERE”. The rest of the letter is completely
blank. The Home Office are particularly poor when addressing Human Rights
submissions. Refusal letters will often simply state that the claim does not
engage the relevant Article. A significant example of this related to a Polish
client where a 16-page letter of representation was submitted, the majority of
which dealt with an Article 8 claim. The refusal letter simply stated that the
claim did not engage Article 8. The client won at Appeal.
The poor decision making by the Home Office is best illustrated by statistical
evidence. The Home Office claim that over 99.5% of cases processed through
Oakington are refused.
Annex A
shows a break down of all (501) cases originating
at Oakington and then represented on appeal by RLC between Oakington’s inception
and June 2002. All of the cases in this sample had been determined at appeal.
Over 42% of the non-certified cases were allowed while over 20% of certified
cases were also allowed. This clearly illustrates just how poor the
decision-making is on Oakington cases.
Annex B shows the results at appeal of all cases from Czech Republic and Poland
dealt with between 1/1/02 and 8/10/02 by RLC. These two countries have been
chosen, as they are likely to be the largest producers of asylum seekers going
through Oakington under the new non-suspensive regime. 42% of non-certified
Czech cases were allowed on appeal in addition to 14% of certified cases.
Regarding Poland, 29% of non-certified cases were allowed on appeal in addition
to 17% of certified cases. Together this represents 19 individuals whom the
Immigration Appellate Authority have found to be refugees or having a serious
possibility of having their human rights breached on return, this year. The
Refugee Legal Centre is concerned that these individuals may not have had an
in-country right of appeal under the new regime. To date no Czech or Polish
cases have been granted asylum at first instance decision from Oakington.
B.
There is not sufficient time for the Reps to be considered.
Asylum interviews at Oakington normally take place on the applicant’s third day
in detention. Following the interview, the record of interview is immediately
faxed to Croydon (see letter from the Home Office at
Annex C). Representatives
have 48 hours from the time of the asylum interview to submit further written
representations prior to a decision being made. Decisions are served the day
after the written representation deadline. It is very clear from the written
reasons for refusal that scant, if any, attention is paid to any written
representations submitted. RLC are concerned that the practice of forwarding the
record of interview separately from, and 48 hours before representations are
due, may encourage IND staff in Croydon to draft the refusal letter prior to
receipt of written representations. RLC at Oakington have a number of examples
of Refusal Reasons letters dated the same day as the asylum interview rather
than the day or day after representations were submitted. If it is the case that
refusal letters are drafted prior to receipt of written representations this is
likely to be prejudicial to a fair assessment of the claim and may result in the
kind of poor decision making illustrated by the statistics.
Even if it were the case that written representations were properly considered,
the 48-hour deadline does not allow adequate time for all evidence to be
collected and submitted. Below, we outline the kinds of situations that RLC
meets regularly at Oakington and which will be exacerbated where there is no
in-country right of appeal.
-
Documentary evidence from the home country (arrest warrants, newspaper articles,
medical reports etc). Even where a client brings these items with them the legal
representative would often not have time to have them translated.
-
Whilst there is a medical centre on site their function is primarily to provide
immediate medical care not to diagnose and report on conditions that may have a
bearing on the outcome of the client’s case such as Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, learning difficulties or psychiatric illness. The medical centre does
not have the expertise to determine whether injuries or scars are likely to have
been caused by torture or maltreatment.
- Statements from third parties.
-
‘Disputed minors’ are currently processed through Oakington and are a
significant problem. For example, this week RLC represented a client who had a
birth certificate with him (The Home Office claimed it was in too good a
condition to be genuine), had been accepted as a minor by both the Refugee
Council and Brighton Social Services (who had previously accommodated him) but
who the Home Office still refused to accept as a minor. They therefore processed
his claim as if he were an adult.
-
Records of previous interviews. The Home Office are very reluctant to release
interview notes from port interviews to legal representatives. The Data
Protection Act doesn’t help in the fast track system because of the time delay
involved. RLC knows of one case where an interview record wasn’t disclosed to us
even though we requested all such records and the Home Office then relied upon
that interview in the refusal letter.
If Oakington is to be used for ‘clearly unfounded’ cases there needs to be a
mechanism that allows for this kind of additional information to be obtained
before a decision is made and the client removed. We don’t believe that the Home
Office are likely to introduce such a mechanism. This underlines our submission
that fast tracking is not appropriate where there is no effective right of
appealing a negative decision.
Adrian Matthews
Regional Manager, RLC, Oakington Reception Centre
23 October 2002
For further details contact Adrian Matthews on 01954-783511 or 0794 983 7724