Detainees Government Will Not Limit Length of Detention
Lord Roberts of Llandudno to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to place time limits on detention for immigration purposes.
Lord Bates: The Government has no intention of introducing a fixed time limit on immigration detention in the UK.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno to ask Her Majesty's Government on what ground an individual can be detained for immigration purpose for periods in excess of 30 days.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con): Individuals may be detained to effect their removal from the UK, to establish their identity or basis of claim, or where there is reason to believe that they will fail to comply with any conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or temporary release. In addition, asylum applicants whose claims are considered to be straightforward and capable of speedy resolution may be detained under the asylum fast track process.
Immigration detention is not subject to a fixed time limit but it must comply with the principles established in leading case law. These broadly provide that: the power to detain can only be exercised for a permitted purpose; detention is limited to a period that is reasonably necessary for the purpose for which it was authorised; what is a reasonable period will depend on all the circumstances of the case; and, if it becomes apparent that the purpose of detention cannot be achieved within that reasonable period, detention should be brought to an end.
House of Lords / 15 Jan 2015 : Column <>WA266
Deportation to Sudan Would Breach Artile 3
In its two Chamber judgments1, in the cases of A.A. v. France (application no. 18039/11) and A.F. v. France (application no. 80086/13), the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there would be a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the applicants were deported to Sudan.
The cases concerned proceedings to deport to Sudan two Sudanese nationals - A.A., from a non- Arab tribe in Darfur, and A.F., from South Darfur and of Tunjur ethnicity - who had arrived in France in 2010.
With regard to the general context, the Court had recently observed that the human-rights situation in Sudan was alarming, in particular where political opponents were concerned, and that merely belonging to a non-Arab ethnic group in Darfur gave rise to a risk of persecution. The Court noted that the situation had deteriorated further since the beginning of 2014.
The Court found in both cases that were the orders to deport the applicants to Sudan to be enforced, the applicants would, on account of their individual circumstances, run a serious risk of incurring treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
Full judgement only in French <> here . . . .
Female Detainees at Yarl's Wood Routinely Humiliated
Women detained in the Yarl's Wood immigration detention centre are routinely humiliated by male staff who monitor them while they are dressing, showering and using the toilet, or are naked in their rooms, a report into the treatment of female asylum seekers reveals. The report, by the charity Women for Refugee Women, noted that many female asylum seekers detained at Yarl's Wood, in Bedfordshire, have been victims of sexual violence in their home countries.
Nineteen of the women interviewed said they had been raped, and 28 women in total indicated they had experienced forced marriage, forced prostitution, female genital mutilation or some other form of sexual violence before coming to the UK. The report also found high levels of depression among detainees, with 19 of the 38 interviewed saying they had been put on suicide watch for all or part of their time at the centre. The study also raises concerns at the use of solitary confinement.
Read more: Guardian, 14/01/15
MM (Darfuris) Sudan CG  UKUT 10 (IAC)
In the country guidance case of AA (Non-Arab Darfuris-relocation) Sudan CG  UKAIT 00056, where it is stated that if a claimant from Sudan is a non-Arab Darfuri he must succeed in an international protection claim, ÒDarfuriÓ is to be understood as an ethnic term relating to origins, not as a geographical term. Accordingly it covers even Darfuris who were not born in Darfur.
Asylum Research Consultancy (ARC) COI Update Volume 93
This document provides an update of Country Guidance case law and UKBA publications and developments in refugee producing countries between 16/12/2014 and 12th January 2015 - Volume 93 <> here . . .
Children Asking for International Protection
Information for unaccompanied children who are applying for international protection pursuant to article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013
We have given you this leaflet because you have expressed the need for protection and you told us you are less than 18 years of age. If you are less than 18 years old, you are considered to be a child. You will also hear the authorities refer to you as a 'minor', which means the same as child. The 'authorities' are the people responsible for making a decision on your claim for protection.
If you seek protection here because you were afraid in your country of origin, we call this 'seeking asylum'. Asylum is a place offering protection and safety.
When you make a formal request to the authorities asking for asylum, the law calls this an 'application or request for international protection'. The person that asks for protection is an 'applicant'. Sometimes you will also hear people calling you an 'asylum seeker'.
Your parents should be with you, but if they are not or if you have been separated from them on the way, you are an 'unaccompanied minor'
In this case, we will provide you with a 'representative', who is an adult who will help you in the course of the procedure. She or he will assist you with your application and can accompany you when you have to talk to the authorities. You can speak about your problems and fears with your representative. Your representative is there to ensure that your best interests are a primary consideration, meaning that your needs, safety, well-being, social development and your views are taken into account. Your Representative will also take account of family reunification possibilities.
Published on Refworld, <>Download the pamphlet here . . . .
Afghan Interpreters Granted Permission to Challenge Government
Two former Afghan interpreters have been granted permission on an additional ground to challenge the GovernmentÕs failure to consider whether the decision not to provide former Afghan interpreters with the same resettlement scheme as former Iraqi interpreters was discriminatory. The Claimants gave loyal, important and dangerous service as interpreters to the UK armed forces. As a result of their work for the UK, the Appellants and their families have suffered serious injuries in Taliban attacks and been subjected to threats to their life and intimidation.
The Court of Appeal today overturned the decision taken by the High Court last June refusing the claimants permission to argue that the government had failed to comply with its public sector equality duties when reaching this decision. The Right Honourable Lord Justice Sullivan said that it was in the public interest for the court to consider whether the government had complied with its statutory duties in making the decision, particularly given the nature and importance of the decision taken.
The judicial review concerns the GovernmentÕs decision not to provide similar or the same assistance to former Afghan interpreters as they did to the Iraqi interpreters. The Claimants argue the dangers faced by former Afghan interpreters are no different from those faced by their Iraqi counterparts and that they should be afforded the same benefits in accordance with the UK GovernmentÕs obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the common law. A full substantive hearing is due to likely to take place in the next few months.
Read more: Leigh Day, 13/01/15
Procedures at Pennine House IRC Changed Following Death
Following the death of Tahir Mehmood in July 2013. Lisa Jane Grice, Lead Nurse at Pennine House IRC, told Manchester Coroner Nigel Meadows that she had no clinical involvement with Mr Mehmood herself and he had been treated by other nurses. She said medical staff are now given essential paperwork before seeing new detainees. There are also defibrillators on two floors at the centre, instead of one, and more staff have been trained to use them.
Previously, there was a two hour "window" when detainees asked to see a nurse but now the medical staff are required to see them as soon as possible. There is also a sticker on the Blood Pressure machine stating that it must be set to record the date and time of readings. The Inquest heard that, at the time of Mr Mehmood's death, the batteries in the Blood Pressure machine had been changed so the date and time were not set properly.
On Friday, the Coroner said his "preliminary view" was that he was inclined to make a Regulation 28 Report as a result of his investigation. (A report under Regulation 28 is produced if it appears there is a risk of other deaths occurring in similar circumstances. The report is sent to organisations or individuals who are in a position to take action to reduce this risk and they must reply within 56 days to say what action they intend to take).
Read more: RAPAR, <> 12/01/15
"I'm in the Dublin Procedure - What Does This Mean?"
Information for applicants for international protection found in a Dublin procedure, pursuant to article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013
You have been given this leaflet because you requested international protection (asylum) in this country or in another Dublin country and the authorities here have reasons to believe that another country might be responsible for examining your request.
We will determine which country is responsible through a process established by a European Union law known as the 'Dublin'Regulation. This process is called the 'Dublin procedure'. This leaflet seeks to answer the most frequent questions you might have about this procedure.
Published on Refworld, <> Download the pamphlet hre . . . .
Child Suicide Bomber Kills 16 in Nigeria
A bomb strapped to a girl aged around 10 years old exploded in a busy market place in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri on Saturday, killing at least 16 people and injuring more than 20, security sources said. "The explosive devices were wrapped around her body and the girl looked no more than 10 years old," a police source said.
Maiduguri, the capital of northern Borno state, lies in the heartland of an insurgency by Islamist militant group Boko Haram, and is often hit by bomb attacks. A Nigerian security source said the bomb went off at 12:15 p.m. (1115 GMT). The girl was killed and the bodies of at least 16 victims were counted in one hospital by mid-afternoon, civilian joint task force member Zakariya Mohammed told Reuters.
Read more: Reuters Foundation, 10/01/15