Record 33.3 Million Internally Displaced in 2013
An annual report on forced displacement released on Wednesday says that a record 33.3 million people were internally displaced at the end of 2013 due to conflict and violence, up a staggering 4.5 million from a year earlier.
The Global Overview 2014, published by the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) and covering internal displacement in 2013, reported that 63 per cent of these internally displaced people (IDPs) were from just five countries: Syria, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria and Sudan. Including figures for Nigeria for the first time, the report documents that an astounding, 3.3 million Nigerians have been displaced by conflict.
Read more: UNHCR, <>14/05/14
Confiscation of Undocumented Migrants Wages Unlawful
UK courts should have balanced individual property rights against interests of general public in case concerning confiscation of wages
In today's Chamber judgment in the case of Paulet v. the United Kingdom (application no. 6219/08), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had been:
A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case concerned the confiscation of Mr Paulet's wages following his conviction for obtaining employment using a false passport. Mr Paulet complained that the confiscation order against him had been disproportionate as it amounted to the confiscation of his entire savings over nearly four years of genuine work, without any distinction being made between his case and those involving more serious criminal offences such as drug trafficking or organised crime.
The Court found that the UK courts' scope of review of Mr Paulet's case had been too narrow.
Notably, they had simply found that the confiscation order against Mr Paulet had been in the public interest, without balancing that conclusion against his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as required under the European Convention.
The applicant, Didier Pierre Paulet, is an Ivoirian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Leeds (England).
Mr Paulet arrived in the United Kingdom in January 2001 and lived illegally at an address in Bedford. Between April 2003 and February 2007 he obtained three jobs - with a recruitment agency, in a cash and carry business and as a forklift truck driver - using a false French passport.
On applying for a provisional driving licence in January 2007, Mr Paulet's passport was discovered and criminal proceedings were brought against him. In June 2007 he pleaded guilty in Luton Crown Court to, among other offences, obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. He was subsequently sentenced to a total of 17 months' imprisonment and a confiscation order was imposed in the sum of 21,949.60 pounds sterling.
Mr Paulet argued on appeal that the confiscation order was an abuse of process as it amounted to the confiscation of his entire savings over nearly four years of genuine work. He submitted in particular that a confiscation order could be described as "oppressive" if it did not pursue the legitimate aim of stripping defendants of the proceeds of crime, reiterating that Parliament had intended the legislation to be compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. His appeal was dismissed in July 2009 on the ground that the confiscation order had not amounted to an abuse of process as there was not only a link between his earnings and the criminal offences, but also a wider public interest in confiscation as he had deliberately circumvented the prohibition against him seeking employment in the UK.
Ultimately, in October 2009 the Court of Appeal refused to certify a point of law of general public importance meaning Mr Paulet could not apply for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Enforcement proceedings have since been brought against Mr Paulet.
The full court briefing <>here . . . .
R (on the application of Fitzroy George) v SSHD  UKSC 28
On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division  EWCA Civ 1362
Judgment: The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal. Lord Hughes gives the only reasoned judgment, with which the other members of the court agree. The better reading of section 5 of the 1971 Act is that it does not revive prior leave on a deportation order's revocation. The other statutory provisions relied upon by Mr George do not support his case.
Justices: Lord Neuberger (President), Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
Background To The Appeal
Mr George was born in Grenada in 1984 and came to the UK in 1995 at the age of 11. In March 2000 he was granted indefinite leave to remain ("ILR") in the UK. He has a partner whom he has known since school, with whom he has a daughter born in 2005. He and his partner do not live together: his daughter however sees him reasonably often and sometimes stays with him.
Since 2000, Mr George has been convicted of seven different offences, including supply of cocaine and possession with intent to supply heroin and cocaine. The Secretary of State decided that Mr George's deportation would be conducive to the public good. From that point he was, by s. 3(5) Immigration Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act"), "liable to deportation". Notice was served upon him, in January 2007, that a deportation order was to be made against him. He unsuccessfully challenged that decision and, on 24 April 2008, a deportation order was made in respect of him. The effect of that deportation order, by section 5(1) of the 1971 Act, was to invalidate his ILR.
Mr George made a further application to the Secretary of State arguing that his deportation to Grenada would be unlawful under s. 6 Human Rights Act 1998 as it would breach his right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR. The Secretary of State rejected that application, but an immigration judge allowed his appeal on 31 March 2009. The effect of that judgment was to revoke his deportation order.
The question in this case is Mr George's immigration status following the making and revocation of the deportation order. Did Mr George's ILR, invalidated by the deportation order, revive when the deportation order was itself revoked? Mr George's solicitors considered that it did, and called on the Secretary of State to confirm this. The Secretary of State however considered that it did not, and instead granted six months' discretionary leave to remain ("DLR") on 2 August 2013. On the expiry of that leave the Secretary of State granted a further three years' DLR.
Mr George judicially reviewed the decision not to reinstate ILR. He argued that on the true interpretation of s. 5(1)-(2) Immigration Act 1971, his ILR was reinstated by the revocation of the deportation order. Subsection (1) provides that a deportation order "shall invalidate any leave to remain given [to a person] before the order is made or while it is in force". Subsection (2) provides that a deportation order "may at any time be revoked by a further order of the Secretary of State, and shall cease to have effect if he becomes a British citizen". He further argued that an interpretation of s. 5 by which his ILR was revived was supported by the fact that other immigration statutes, particularly s. 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ("the 2002 Act"), required that reading of the 1971 Act. Mr George's claim was dismissed in the High Court, but his appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Reasons for the Judgment
Mr George's first argument is that on its natural meaning, (i) revocation of a deportation order under s. 5(2) of the 1971 Act must reverse all the consequences of the order listed in s. 5(1), including therefore the invalidation of the leave to remain, and (ii) that the words "shall cease to have effect" in s. 5(2) govern both the citizenship and revocation possibilities in that subsection. However, neither point is compelling. The wording of the subsections does not provide a conclusive answer to the question in the appeal [10-11].
Importantly, the 1971 Act has consistently been treated as meaning that revocation does not revive prior leave to remain. Draft Immigration Rules which made this clear were prepared (and considered by Parliament) alongside the 1971 Act, and every subsequent version of the Immigration Rules has contained the same statement. Each version has been laid before Parliament. Likewise, successive editions of practitioner textbooks have taken the same position . Revival of prior leave to remain is not the natural meaning of s. 5 of the 1971 Act. It is a significant and far-reaching legal concept, and it is likely that if intended, it would have been explicitly provided . The treatment of s. 5(2) of the 1971 Act in successive Rules laid before Parliament clearly demonstrates that there was no legislative assumption that the effect of revocation of a deportation order was revival of prior leave to remain .
Mr George's second argument was that other immigration statutes, particularly s. 76 of the 2002 Act, indicate that the proper interpretation of the 1971 Act is that revocation of a deportation order revives leave to remain. S. 76 provides a power for the Secretary of State to revoke ILR if a person is "liable to deportation" but "cannot be deported for legal reasons". Mr George argued that this power would be superfluous if the making of a deportation order irrevocably cancelled ILR [13-14].
However, this is incorrect. While the legal impediment to Mr George's deportation arose only after his deportation order was made, in other cases the legal impediment would be apparent prior to this point, and so the order would never be made. S. 76 provides a power for the Secretary of State to revoke ILR and instead provide for limited or conditional leave. In any event the only import of this argument goes to Parliament's intention when it passed the 1971 Act: the legislative history set out at  demonstrates that Parliament intended a deportation order irrevocably to extinguish prior leave to remain [16-18].
A number of arguments based on other statutes and situations were raised. Where an individual previously possessing ILR had been deported, that individual might need to return to the UK for a brief period. The Secretary of State would need to revoke the deportation order and make a fresh grant of conditional leave. It could not be right that in such a situation the previous ILR would revive, and this provided some limited support for the Secretary of State's position. The Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 did not alter this conclusion, since the issue is the construction of the 1971 Act, and the problem existed prior to 2000 [19-21]. Mr George had based an argument on an analogy with s. 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. However, that issue was not squarely before the court, and it would be wrong to determine its interpretation in the abstract [25-26]. The same was true of the UK Borders Act 2007 [27-28]. More fundamentally, it is wrong to reason from suggested scenarios under later Acts to the meaning of an earlier Act. Later statutes are not reliable guides to the meaning of earlier ones, particular in areas where there have been fast-moving changes to the legislation .
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
Barnardo's Role in the Detention and Removal of Children
While Barnardo's bona fides in seeking to make the experience of detention and removal as painless as possible for children is beyond question, It is its naïve, unquestioning acceptance of the framework of its care provision, and of all the other players, that angers objectors. In the final analysis, the concern expressed by Al Aynsley-Green when Barnardo's took the contract – that organisations can't effectively hold government to account if they work inside the system and take public money – is vindicated by this report. Barnardo's colludes with, legitimises and provides chintz curtains for a system of institutionalised disbelief, indifference and inhumanity – no matter how kindly it does its job.
Read the full article: Frances Webber, IRR, 15/05/14
Deportation [UKBA pay Embassies for Ttravel Documents]
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments her Department makers to destination countries for visas allowing entry to people being deported from the UK to those countries.
James Brokenshire: We work closely with embassies from a wide range of countries to obtain travel documents, rather than visas, to assist removal. We pay a small administrative fee for these documents, which enable the removal of people who have no right to be in the UK.
House of Commons: 4 May 2014 : <> Column 622W
Early Day Motion 1336: LGBTQ People in Uganda and Nigeria
That this House recognises the immediate danger faced by LGBTQ people in Uganda and Nigeria under newly implemented laws which criminalise homosexuality and dish out punishments including life imprisonment for repeat offenders; believes that the UK government should make concerted efforts to contribute to the promotion of LGBTQ rights in both these countries; expresses deep concern that LGBTQ people in these countries are being beaten by mobs, arrested by authorities and subjected to torture by those in power at detention facilities; further recognises that there may already have been an increase in asylum requests by LGBTQ people from Uganda and Nigeria; acknowledges that the legal obligations of the UK under international law is to provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and violations of their fundamental rights; accepts that legal obligations under EU law is to respect the prohibition of arbitrary detention; further accepts that refoulement would lead to human rights' abuses; regrets that the UK government has done nothing to end practices that discriminate against LGBTQ asylum seekers and prejudice their cases through demands that they prove they are gay and demeans the ordeals they go through; notes that the policies currently in place are questionable and perversely violate the rights of individuals who seek asylum on the basis of their sexuality and sexual orientation; and calls on the Home Office to provide safe resettlement to present and future cases of LGBTQ asylum seekers from Uganda and Nigeria, recognising their political status and the serious threat to their safety, well-being and life.
House of Commons: <>13.05.2014
Asylum Research Consultancy (ARC) COI Update Volume 79
This document provides an update of Country Guidance case law and UKBA publications and developments in refugee producing countries between 29th April and 13th May 2014 - Volume 79 < here . . .
Public Meeting - Stop Scapegoating Immigrants
7:00pm Monday 19th May 2014
Indian YMCA, 41 Fitzroy Square, WC1 6QA
Nearest tube: Warren Street
Organized by Movement Against Xenophobia
Public hostility and fear towards Britain's migrant communities is being whipped up, largely thanks to UKIP's vicious and racist poster campaign. But the problem goes further and deeper than just UKIP. The Immigration Bill, which is due to become law later this month is the most racist and discriminatory piece of legislation we have seen for many years. There was little opposition to the Bill from other mainstream parties.
Movement Against Xenophobia is a campaign aimed at countering the emergence of a vicious anti-immigrant discourse adopted by most mainstream political parties in the UK. We are a united coalition of organisations, trade unions, migrant groups and prominent individuals working towards a society that appreciates immigrants and the contribution they make and rejects the scapegoating and divisive policies our political parties have to offer.
Join the discussion, join the voices uniting against this insidious xenophobia.
Speakers include: Natalie Bennett, Leader, Green Party; Dr Tommy Tomescu, Alliance Against Romanian and Bulgarian Discrimination; Jasna Badzak, former UKIP Press Officer; Shreya Paudel, International Students Officer, NUS; Lee Jasper, BARAC; More speakers tba
More details: www.noxenophobia.org / Email: email@example.com
Reformers Renew Call for G4S and Serco Prisons Ban
Howard League for Penal Reform wants companies barred from bidding for government business until investigations are finished: reformers have renewed a call for outsourcing companies G4S and Serco to be barred from bidding for any more government business until major fraud investigations into their criminal justice operations are completed.
The Howard League for Penal Reform published a dossier of incidents in which both companies have failed to deliver on their justice contracts over the past two years. It follows moves by ministers to allow the companies to resume bidding for government contracts after they agreed to repay £180m in total for overcharging the taxpayer on major electronic tagging contracts.
Read more: Alan Travis, The Guardian, <> 13/05/14
Uganda Anti-Gay Law - Tenfold Rise in Attacks on LGBTI People
Uganda has suffered an alarming rise in attacks on gay and lesbian people since it passed an anti-homosexuality law late last year, research has found. The report, compiled by Sexual Minorities Uganda, detailed an attempted lynching, mob violence, homes burned down, blackmail, lost jobs, arrests, evictions and suicides. The number of recorded incidents had increased tenfold, the group said. At least 25 people were reported to have fled Uganda, seeking asylum in neighbouring Kenya and Rwanda.
In many cases tabloid newspapers published stories identifying men or women who were subsequently disowned by their family or assaulted in the street. Several are facing prosecution. The anti-homosexuality act (AHA) was ratified by the Ugandan parliament on 20 December last year and signed into force, in the face of international protests, by President Yoweri Museveni in late February.
Read more: Owen Bowcott, Guardian, <> 12/05/14
Early Day Motion 1318: Detention Centre Demonstration
That this House express its concern at the reports of a major demonstration undertaken by detainees at Harmondsworth detention centre to highlight their plight on the Government's fast track procedure for asylum seekers and the lack of facilities to assist in pursuing their appeals, including access to legal advice and means of communication with their legal representatives; and urges the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of the grievances raised by the detainees with the aim of resolving this dispute. <>House of Commons: 07.05.2014
Put your MP to work demand they sign EDM 1318
You can contact your MP for free, through: WriteToThem.Com