Friday, May 07, 2021
Home Secretary criticised over changes in asylum seeker policy
As the results of yesterday'z elections start to emerge over the course of the next 72 hours, it is already clear that votes that had previously gone to small racist parties on the right are now switching to Boris Johnson's Conservatives. There is nothing to indicate that the Tories are uncomfortable with that trend, indeed it seems tha in their policies on immigration and asylum they are actively courting these voters.
There is a good example of this in the Guardian, who report that a high court judge has criticised the British home secretary in court and said he found it “extremely troubling” after one of her officials admitted the Home Office might have acted unlawfully in changing its asylum accommodation policy during the pandemic.
The paper says Mr Justice Garnham raised concerns in court on Thursday that the home secretary, Priti Patel, could have been distributing public funds without legal authority:
He was hearing four linked cases from asylum seekers challenging the lawfulness of the home secretary’s policy to evict some refused asylum seekers during the pandemic. During the hearing the Home Office was accused of unlawfully altering parts of the accommodation policy.
In a witness statement to the court the Home Office official said: “At the time we did not consider what power, or whether we had the power, to implement what we saw as administrative changes. This was a response to the urgency of events and the immediate concern about keeping people in the same accommodation.”
Garnham said: “The secretary of state is saying that she was acting without lawful authority. It seems to me a most serious submission to be making in court, if that is what she is saying.”
He added that it was “extremely troubling” if correct that the home secretary was acknowledging “that she was acting without power when she set up this system for distribution of public funds she did so without legal authority”.
The judge said that the position the home secretary had put the court in was “extraordinary” and that the way she has acted was “a singularly serious position for her to find herself in” and “unfortunate in the extreme”.
The judge added: “The circumstances in which a department of state acts without clear knowledge of its powers to act, it raises issues of genuine significance.”
The legal challenge to the evictions – which had been paused for almost a year due to the pandemic – focuses on the public health risks attached to evicting asylum seekers who are likely to end up rough sleeping or sofa surfing during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It emerged last month that the Home Office was planning to resume the evictions process “with immediate effect”.
The court heard that Public Health England’s view was that it could not advise that anyone “should be enabled to become homeless from a public health perspective” during the pandemic.
The judge agreed to adjourn Thursday’s hearing to give the Home Office time to identify the legal basis for its policy. He made an order halting the evictions until the case had concluded. It is scheduled to resume on 27 and 28 May.
An apology has been issued to the judge by the home secretary. Her counsel, Alan Payne QC, apologised to the judge for the situation the Home Office put the court in “as well as passing on the apology of my client” (Patel).
As the solicitors representing the claimants say: “The home secretary has been trying to evict thousands of migrants during the pandemic despite the risks to the communities they live in from doing so. She has been unable to properly defend these claims in court today, despite being told in clear and strong terms by a high court judge on 23 April 2021 to do so.”
An apology is not enough, there needs to be a more humane approach from the Home Office.
There is a good example of this in the Guardian, who report that a high court judge has criticised the British home secretary in court and said he found it “extremely troubling” after one of her officials admitted the Home Office might have acted unlawfully in changing its asylum accommodation policy during the pandemic.
The paper says Mr Justice Garnham raised concerns in court on Thursday that the home secretary, Priti Patel, could have been distributing public funds without legal authority:
He was hearing four linked cases from asylum seekers challenging the lawfulness of the home secretary’s policy to evict some refused asylum seekers during the pandemic. During the hearing the Home Office was accused of unlawfully altering parts of the accommodation policy.
In a witness statement to the court the Home Office official said: “At the time we did not consider what power, or whether we had the power, to implement what we saw as administrative changes. This was a response to the urgency of events and the immediate concern about keeping people in the same accommodation.”
Garnham said: “The secretary of state is saying that she was acting without lawful authority. It seems to me a most serious submission to be making in court, if that is what she is saying.”
He added that it was “extremely troubling” if correct that the home secretary was acknowledging “that she was acting without power when she set up this system for distribution of public funds she did so without legal authority”.
The judge said that the position the home secretary had put the court in was “extraordinary” and that the way she has acted was “a singularly serious position for her to find herself in” and “unfortunate in the extreme”.
The judge added: “The circumstances in which a department of state acts without clear knowledge of its powers to act, it raises issues of genuine significance.”
The legal challenge to the evictions – which had been paused for almost a year due to the pandemic – focuses on the public health risks attached to evicting asylum seekers who are likely to end up rough sleeping or sofa surfing during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It emerged last month that the Home Office was planning to resume the evictions process “with immediate effect”.
The court heard that Public Health England’s view was that it could not advise that anyone “should be enabled to become homeless from a public health perspective” during the pandemic.
The judge agreed to adjourn Thursday’s hearing to give the Home Office time to identify the legal basis for its policy. He made an order halting the evictions until the case had concluded. It is scheduled to resume on 27 and 28 May.
An apology has been issued to the judge by the home secretary. Her counsel, Alan Payne QC, apologised to the judge for the situation the Home Office put the court in “as well as passing on the apology of my client” (Patel).
As the solicitors representing the claimants say: “The home secretary has been trying to evict thousands of migrants during the pandemic despite the risks to the communities they live in from doing so. She has been unable to properly defend these claims in court today, despite being told in clear and strong terms by a high court judge on 23 April 2021 to do so.”
An apology is not enough, there needs to be a more humane approach from the Home Office.
Comments:
<< Home
> it is already clear that votes that had previously gone to small racist parties on the right are now switching to Boris Johnson's Conservatives. There is nothing to indicate that the Tories are uncomfortable with that trend <
Great minds ...
Post a Comment
Great minds ...
<< Home
