G4S No Convictions - But Does it Have Blood on its Hands?

The number of deaths linked to G4S employees, some with racial overtones, means this company must have a problem. When will it be held to account?

he racist texts found on the phones of two of the three G4S security guards who escorted Angolan deportee Jimmy Mubenga to his death in 2009 required a double take. One text, written by defendant Stuart Tribelnig, read: ÒFuck off and go home you free-loading, benefit-grabbing, kid-producing, violent, non-English speaking cocksuckers and take those hairy-faced, sandal-wearing, bomb-making, goat-fucking, smelly raghead bastards with youÓ. Meanwhile, 76 racist texts were found on the phone of G4S guard Terrence Hughes, which were targeted at black Africans, Asians and Muslims.

Ultimately, the judge, Mr Justice Spencer, decided the texts were not relevant to the prosecution of the guards, and the jury subsequently ruled that they were not guilty of manslaughter, after forcing MubengaÕs head down and restricting his breathing as the flight prepared to take off at Heathrow airport. More than 20 people had heard Mubenga say over and over ÒI canÕt breathe.Ó

Whether the judge was right is another matter. But it does leave us with a number of unanswered questions. What kind of company would employ such individuals? What checks were done before they were employed? And how can transnational companies such as G4S be held accountable for their employeesÕ actions?
Read more:
Simon Hattenstone and Eric Allison, Guardian, 22/12/14

Self-Harm in Immigration Detention Q3/2014

15 Migrants Die in Shameful Calais Conditions in 2014
Guardian investigation reveals death toll over 12 months with many desperately trying risky routes into UK to escape makeshift camps without sanitation at French port - At least 15 migrants in and around the French port of Calais have died in the past year as an influx of young men and women from east Africa take ever greater risks to get the UK, according to an investigation by the Guardian.

Growing numbers of young families, some with children as young as three, have also arrived in the French town in the past few months and are living in makeshift camps without sanitation or running water. The European director of the UNÕs refugee agency (UNHCR) described the situation as shameful and warned more people will die in the refugee camps in the coming weeks as temperatures plummet.
Read more:
Matthew Taylor and Guy Grandjean, Guardian, 23/12/14

AK and SK (Christians: Risk) Pakistan CG v. SSHD

United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

1. Christians in Pakistan are a religious minority who, in general, suffer discrimination but this is not sufficient to amount to a real risk of persecution.

2. Unlike the position of Ahmadis, Christians in general are permitted to practise their faith, can attend church, participate in religious activities and have their own schools and hospitals.

3. Evangelism by its very nature involves some obligation to proselytise. Someone who seeks to broadcast their faith to strangers so as to encourage them to convert, may find themselves facing a charge of blasphemy. In that way, evangelical Christians face a greater risk than those Christians who are not publicly active. It will be for the judicial fact-finder to assess on a case by case basis whether, notwithstanding attendance at an evangelical church, it is important to the individual to behave in evangelical ways that may lead to a real risk of persecution.

4. Along with Christians, Sunnis, Shi'as, Ahmadis and Hindus may all be potentially charged with blasphemy. Those citizens who are more marginalised and occupy low standing social positions, may be less able to deal with the consequences of such proceedings.

5. The risk of becoming a victim of a blasphemy allegation will depend upon a number of factors and must be assessed on a case by case basis. Relevant factors will include the place of residence, whether it is an urban or rural area, and the individual's level of education, financial and employment status and level of public religious activity such as preaching. These factors are not exhaustive.

6. Non state agents who use blasphemy laws against Christians, are often motivated by spite, personal or business disputes, arguments over land and property. Certain political events may also trigger such accusations. A blasphemy allegation, without more, will not generally be enough to make out a claim under the Refugee Convention. It has to be actively followed either by the authorities in the form of charges being brought or by those making the complaint. If it is, or will be, actively pursued, then an applicant may be able to establish a real risk of harm in the home area and an insufficiency of state protection.

7. Like other women in Pakistan, Christian women, in general, face discrimination and may be at a heightened risk but this falls short of a generalised real risk. The need for a fact sensitive analysis is crucial in their case. Factors such as their age, place of residence and socio-economic milieu are all relevant factors when assessing the risk of abduction, conversions and forced marriages.

8. Relocation is normally a viable option unless an individual is accused of blasphemy which is being seriously pursued; in that situation there is, in general, no internal relocation alternative.

Decision
263. The First-tier Tribunal judge was found to have made errors of law. Its determination is set aside and we re-make the decision.

264. The appeals of both appellants are dismissed on all grounds.

Publication Date 15 December 2014

Published on Refworld: <>23/12/14

Foreign Graduates to be 'Kicked Out' of UK

Home Secretary Theresa May has unveiled plans to Òmove towards zero net student migrationÓ by sending students home who have come to Britain on student visas and make them reapply for work visas from abroad. Under the plans, graduates from non-European Union countries would have to leave the UK after finishing their studies and then reapply for a work visa, instead of being able to apply for one while still in Britain, the Sunday Times reports.

ÒMaking sure immigrants leave Britain at the end of their visa is as important a part of running a fair and efficient immigration system as controlling who comes here in the first place,Ó a source close to the Home Secretary told the Sunday Times. Under the plans, the government would fine colleges and universities if they fail to ensure students have left the country.
Read more: Telegraph, 21/12/14

Immigration System in 'Intensive Care'
Home Affairs Committee chairman Keith Vaz criticised ministers over exit checks, missing migrants and the use of a single immigration target. A committee report on UK immigration directorates made a range of criticisms and raised "serious doubts" over plans to bring in exit checks - by next April - on all those leaving the UK.

Heading the conclusions of the committee's report was an attack on the government over the proposed exit checks. Mr Vaz said MPs had been assured that, by April 2015, a new system of "departure lists" would be in place for all passengers leaving the UK - but the report says this "no longer looks likely". Failure to meet the target on time would "give rise to the twin perils of increased security risks and illegal migration", Mr Vaz said.

It follows more than a decade of problems and delays in the "e-borders" project, a scheme devised by the Labour government in 2003 to count everyone in and out of the UK by collecting advance passenger information. "Successive governments have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the botched e-borders programme. Everyone who enters and leaves Britain must be counted in and out," Mr Vaz said.
Read more: BBC News, 20/12/14

Idira, R (on the application of) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 4299 (Admin) (19 December 2014)

[Application for judicial review dismissed - permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal to determine proper bounds of Krasniqi]

[significant differences between HMPs and IRCs]

[practical difficulties in obtaining legal advice in Her Majesty's prisons - no duty scheme, no Detention Advice Service, no Praxis ]

1)The Claimant is a national of Algeria. He came to the United Kingdom on the 15th February 1998, aged only 15. He was granted exceptional leave to remain, on account of his youth, but that expired on 10th July 2004. The Claimant has accumulated numerous criminal convictions, and spent periods of time in custody. On 10th September 2007 the Defendant deemed that the Claimant's presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good, on account of his criminal record, and signed a deportation order against him. Subsequently, the Claimant received further criminal convictions leading to imprisonment, interspersed with periods of immigration detention.

2) On 20th November 2012 the Claimant was convicted at Central Magistrates' Court of the offence of theft, and he was sentenced to 3 months 20 days' imprisonment. The custodial part of that sentence was completed on 14th January 2013, and the Claimant was automatically on licence for the remaining period, having served half his sentence. However, he remained in detention at HMP Wandsworth under paragraph 2 (3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, being the subject of a deportation order. Save for short periods when he was detained at Immigration Removal Centres ("IRCs"), the Claimant was held at HMP Wandsworth under immigration powers until 7th November 2013, when he was transferred to HMP Wormwood Scrubs. During this period he made a number of bail applications, all of which were refused.

3)Eventually, the Claimant was transferred to Harmondsworth IRC on 21st March 2014. He was released on immigration bail on 31st July 2014. The Claimant has not been removed to Algeria, as he should have been a long time ago, owing to difficulties with his documentation. The Claimant asserts that he wishes to return to Algeria, and the authorities there are therefore respectfully encouraged to facilitate his wishes.

4) These judicial review proceedings, as originally constituted, sought to assail the lawfulness of the Claimant's detention after 14th January 2013. There were two limbs to the challenge. By the first limb, the Claimant contended that he should not have been subject to administrative detention at all, because there was no prospect of his removal from the United Kingdom within a reasonable period. By his second limb, the Claimant contends that between 14th January 2013 and 21st March 2014 he should have been held in an IRC rather than a prison.

5) When these proceedings were last before the Court on 13th May 2014, Holman J dismissed the claim on the first limb. He adjourned the second limb for future determination. At that point, it was understood that this issue would be addressed by the Administrative Court in another case listed for hearing in July 2014. However, it is clear from the transcript of the decision of HHJ Clive Heaton QC in Lemtelsi v SSHD [2014] EWHC 2750 (Admin) that the issue was not in fact determined. It therefore falls to me to rule on this important issue: I understand that at least one other claim is awaiting the outcome of these proceedings.

6) Although the Claimant is no longer in detention, the point he raises in these proceedings is far from academic. He seeks damages under section 8 of the HRA 1998 read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of the ECHR to reflect his unlawful detention in prison, rather than in a detention centre.

7) I mentioned that the Claimant's argument in relation to his second limb covers the period 14th January 2013 to 21st March 2014. However, it became clear during oral argument that the policy which the Claimant seeks to challenge was only applied to preclude his transfer to an IRC on and after 3rd July 2013. I understand it to be common ground between the parties that the application of the impugned policy was the reason why the Claimant remained in prison from that date until 21st March 2014.

91) The Claimant's recently served evidence points to the practical difficulties in obtaining legal advice in Her Majesty's prisons, particularly in the current financial climate. There is no duty scheme available in prisons. According to the second statement of James Read, on 14th May 2014 the Detention Advice Service, a charity which provided advice to immigration detainees and foreign nationals in prison, ceased trading. Further, a charity called Praxis no longer has funding to support legal advice in prisons. An email dated 4th December 2014 corrects an error contained in the second witness statement of Karen Abdul-Hady of the same date. Elsewhere, the Defendant's rebuttal evidence served to temper some of the Claimant's strictures, and to demonstrate a degree of overstatement, but I am able to express my conclusions in the following way. I am entirely satisfied that there are significant differences between HMPs and IRCs. I have already pointed out that they are designed for different purposes. The existence of these significant differences no doubt avails Mr Denholm's Article 5 case in relation to the "some link" point, although he is precluded from running that case at this level. On the other hand, and this is decisive for the purposes of this fourth issue, the Claimant's evidence is quite insufficient to show anything like the level of "undue harshness" which Carnwath LJ had in mind in Krasniqi. This would be so whether "unduly harsh" is to be understood as meaning "tantamount to a breach of Article 3", or something slightly less serious. These are absolute, not comparative, judgments.

92) A finding, without more, that prisons are significantly harsher than IRCs does not avail the Claimant. For the reasons I have already given, binding authority precludes treating this as a freestanding basis for finding a breach of Article 5. Although the Claimant has picked up the gauntlet notionally thrown down by Carnwath LJ in the final sentence of paragraph 19 of his judgment in Krasniqi, he has failed by some margin to meet the threshold test which the Court of Appeal had in mind.

Conclusion
93 With considerable reluctance, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. I do, however, grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I must leave it to that Court to determine the proper bounds of Krasniqi.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4299.html