Immigrants Detainees [Sectioned Under Mental Health Act 1983]

House of Commons / 26 Feb 2014 : <>Column 345W

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals detained in immigration removal centres have been transferred to hospital following sectioning under the Mental Health Act 1983 from (a) Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre, (b) Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre, (c) Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre and (d) all other immigration removal centres in each of the last five years for which records are available. [187527]

James Brokenshire [holding answer 13 February 2014]: Figures on people leaving detention, by all reasons for leaving, are available from 2010.

The following table shows the number of people leaving detention who had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. It is presumed that they were all transferred to hospital. The data are shown by last place of detention and from 2010 to September 2013. People leaving detention, sectioned under the Mental Health Act by place of last detention, 2010 to September 2013

Unlawful Detention: Tsavdaris v SSHD [2014] EWHC 440 (QB)
1) The Claimant is a national of Greece who was detained by the Defendant between 28th May and 5th December 2006, pursuant to a deportation order made on 20th March 2006, which was revoked on 7th December 2006. He claims damages for false imprisonment, on the basis that, following the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 ("the 2006 Regulations"), with effect from 30th April 2006, he could only be removed from the UK "on imperative grounds of public security" which were never established in his case. The Defendant defends the claim on the basis that the deportation order of 20th March 2006 was validly made under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 ("the 2000 Regulations"), and its validity was continued under the 2006 Regulations.

2) By virtue of section 17(3) Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and CPR Pt 66, this civil claim has been brought against the Home Office, whereas the earlier judicial review proceedings were properly brought against the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("the Secretary of State"). Nothing turns on this distinction in this case.

Conclusion
67) For the reasons I have given, I conclude that the Claimant was falsely imprisoned by being unlawfully detained in immigration detention between 1st July and 4th December 2006.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/440.html

Uganda Politicians Celebrate Passing of Anti-Gay Laws

At a public ceremony in a packed room at the State House in Entebbe, Yoweri Museveni formally initialled the anti-homosexuality act, which also outlaws the promotion of homosexuality and requires citizens to denounce to the police anyone suspected of being gay. "No study has shown you can be homosexual by nature. That's why I have agreed to sign the bill," Museveni said in a speech at the presidential palace near the capital, Kampala.

"Outsiders cannot dictate to us. This is our country. I advise friends from the west not to make this an issue, because if they make it an issue the more they will lose. If the west does not want to work with us because of homosexuals, then we have enough space to ourselves here." Supporters clapped during the press conference.
Read more: theguardian.com, <>Monday 24 February 2014

Early Day Motion 1106: Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill (No.2)
That this House condemns the signing of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill into law; notes that the Act expands the range of same-sex activities that will be criminalised and introduces life imprisonment for acts of so-called aggravated homosexuality; further notes that the Act also makes it a crime not to report gay people; believes that such a law makes it impossible to be openly gay in Uganda; recognises that passing such a law is a retrograde step in the worldwide fight for gay equality; and calls on the Government to denounce President Yoweri Museveni and the Ugandan government in the strongest possible terms.
<>House of Commons: 24.02.2014

Tragic Truth Of Syria's 500,000 Refuge Children

The conflict that has torn Syria apart has raged for almost three years, left more than 100,000 people dead in its wake and driven nine-and-a-half million from their homes. It took intense political pressure to get the British Government to agree to offer hundreds of the "most needy people" in Syrian refugee camps a home in this country. "We live in the modern age – we can read what's going on in Syria; we've never had more information at our fingertips," says Thompson – "but no one cares."
Read more: Sarah Morrison, Indpendent, 23/02/14

Jimmy Mubenga's Family Urges CPS to Make Criminal Charges

Relatives of Jimmy Mubenga, who died after being restrained by three G4S guards while being deported from the UK more than three years ago, say their lives are on hold as they wait for prosecutors to decide whether to press criminal charges.

Mubenga's 19-year-old son, Roland, has written to the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, saying the family will "remain desolate" until the Crown Prosecution Service makes a decision on whether to prosecute the guards.
Read more: Guardian 24/02/14

UKBA: Operational Guidance Note: Syria

This document provides Home Office caseworkers with guidance on the nature and handling of the most common types of claims received from nationals/residents of Syria, including whether claims are or are not likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. Caseworkers must refer to the relevant asylum instructions (AIs) for further details of the policy on these areas.

1.2 Caseworkers must not base decisions on the country of origin information in this guidance; it is included to provide context only and does not purport to be comprehensive.

1.3 The conclusions in this guidance are based on the totality of the available evidence, not just the brief extracts contained herein, and caseworkers must likewise take into account all available evidence. It is therefore essential that this guidance is read in conjunction with the relevant country of origin information (COI) and any other pertinent data, such as country caselaw.
Published on Refworld, 24/02/14

Immigration Statistics Quarter 4, October/November/December 2013

[Sponsors Disability Concessions - Inclusions/Exceptions]

Baroness Hamwee to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the statement on the UK Border Agency website regarding the financial requirement applying to a person wishing to come to, or stay in, the United Kingdom as the partner of a British citizen or settled person that "you will be exempt from the new financial requirement if your sponsor receives a specified disability-related benefit or carer's allowance in the United Kingdom. You will need to show that your sponsor can maintain and accommodate you without access to public funds", why Incapacity Benefit or Employment Support Allowance do not qualify for exemption; and what benefits do qualify. [HL5349]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con): The benefits which exempt an applicant from the new financial requirement for sponsoring a spouse or partner and dependent children of non-European Economic Area nationality to settle in the UK under the family Immigration Rules include: Disability Living Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, Attendance Allowance, Carer's Allowance, Personal Independence Payment, Armed Forces Independence Payment, Guaranteed Income Payment under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, Constant Attendance Allowance, Mobility Supplement and War Disablement Pension under the War Pensions Scheme.

Incapacity Benefit and Employment Support Allowance are not included in the list of specified benefits because they are not paid solely as a result of an individual's disability or responsibility for a person in receipt of a disability-related benefit.

House of Lords / 25 Feb 2014 : <>Column WA247

Early Day Motion 1102: International Law And The Rohingya
That this House is deeply concerned by the statement of the UN Special Rapporteur on Burma that the government of Burma is failing to satisfactorily investigate allegations of the mass murder of ethnic Rohingya men, women and children at Du Chee Yar Tan village in January 2014; notes that the government of Burma has failed to respond to every single request by the United Nations to carry out impartial and independent investigations into human rights abuses in Burma; further notes that the government of Burma has rejected and failed to investigate evidence compiled by Human Rights Watch of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya; condemns the rejection by the Burmese government of the UN General Assembly Resolution call to reform the discriminatory 1982 Citizenship Law; believes that it is now abundantly clear that the government of Burma is not willing to take sufficient action to either investigate or end violence and discrimination against the Rohingya; and therefore calls on the Government to work to establish an independent international investigation into violations of international law against the Rohingya people in Burma.
<>House of Commons: 24.02.2014

No Influx Of Migrant Workers From Romania And Bulgaria

The predicted influx of workers from Romania and Bulgaria following the lifting of immigration restrictions has failed to materialise, a survey of airlines and coach companies has found.

Six airlines and three coach companies who provide services between Romania and Bulgaria and the UK all said they had not seen any increased traffic from the two eastern European states to this country since the New Year.

The figures were uncovered by the pro-immigration campaign group Migration Matters. Over Christmas and New Year, there were warnings from politicians and anti-immigration campaigners, including Ukip and MigrationWatch, that relaxing visa restrictions on Bulgaria and Romania would lead to an influx of people, put pressure on public services and fuel "benefit tourism". Shortly before the visa rules changed on 1 January, David Cameron announced that Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants would not be eligible for out-of-work benefits for the first three months of being in the UK.

On 1 January, Keith Vaz and fellow members of the Home Affairs Committee went to greet Romanians at Heathrow airport, to find that only a handful were arriving. The new research suggests that this trend continued through January and February.

Jane Merrick, Indpendent, <> 23/02/14

India: Court Decision Recriminalises Homosexuality

Back in 2009, Lesley Esteves was dancing in the streets after judges in Delhi decriminalised homosexuality. When the Delhi High Court suspended the draconian Section 377 of the Indian penal code which dated from the days of British rule, India's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community thought there was no turning back.

Five years on the euphoria has gone. In December, the country's highest court overturned the lower court's ruling, once again making gay sex a crime punishable by up to ten years in jail and putting tens of millions of Indians at risk of prosecution or harassment. Last month, that court – which had said gay people in India were just a "minuscule minority" – upheld its decision against an appeal and said it was up to the government to change the law.

But there is little chance for that. While senior figures of the ruling Congress party supported repealing Section 377, the leadership of the main opposition party, which most analysts believe is set to secure power in an upcoming election, do not. As it was, the current parliament held its last session on Friday; it could be years before a new parliament amends the law.
Read more: Andrew Buncombe, Indpendent, 23/02/14