The Independent Family Returns Panel
The purpose of this Panel is to provide independent advice to the UK Border Agency regarding the appropriate method of removal of an individual family from the UK in cases where ensured return is necessary. The advice given by the Panel will seek to ensure that individual return plans are catered for a family’s needs and take full account of the welfare of the children involved. They will also ensure that the UK Border Agency fulfils its duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
An annual report will be published outlining the advice given including the information regarding any cases where the method of return used differed from that advised by the Panel.
The new Panel will also be responsible in considering the overall handling of families who are denied entry to the UK at borders in order to assess whether detention in such cases is being kept to a minimum.
It is said that the Panel will consist of an independent chair and other members with safeguarding and medical expertise. It will also include officials from the UK Border Agency and Department for Education. Members of the Panel will be appointed on an interim basis from 1st March 2011 pending formal recruitment process later in the year.
The UK Border Agency and independent courts will continue to hold the decision as to whether removal of a family is appropriate or not. The Panel is not able to endorse or reconsider removal.
Provisional Panel membership
The current interim panel membership is:
· Chris Spencer (chair), until very recently the Director of Children's Services at Hillingdon Borough Council. He is also a senior member of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, a trained child psychologist and has a long association with child welfare issues.
· Pauline Newman, who will join the Panel in April after her retirement as Director of Children's Services at Manchester City Council.
· John Donaldson MBE, former Head of Service for Immigration and Emergency Services at Glasgow City Council.
· Philip Ishola, current Head of the Asylum and Immigration Service and counter child trafficking lead officer for Harrow Children's Services and Local Safeguarding Children Board.
· Dr John Keen, medical advisor to the UK Border Agency.
· UK Border Agency official, to provide expertise on the logistics and practical aspects of managing immigration removals.
· Department for Education official, to provide expertise in safeguarding policy and legislation.
Fast-track deportations are "unlawful", Court Rules
The High Court in
Medical Justice, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1925 (Admin) (26 July 2010 find that the Home Office policy of fast-track deportations to be unlawful as this policy was denying failed asylum seekers the chance to seek legal advice. This follows the fact that under this policy the Home Office can deport migrants where a 72 hour notice has been given. However, this is not always the case. Under what is known as a special “exceptions policy” which was introduced three years ago, UK Border Agency has the power to remove some failed asylum seekers back to their home country with little or no notice at all.
This “exceptions policy” can be applied to unaccompanied minors and vulnerable asylum seekers who if given advance notice of removal may harm themselves or attempt suicide.
Although this seems specific, the policy is in fact broadly applicable as the Home Office can apply the exception to those migrants that are seen to be potentially violent or those who have been detained in a detention centre and have been deemed to be imposing a risk to others, thus giving the Home Office the right to such individuals immediately.
Not only is the policy seen to be denying failed asylum seekers fundamental access to justice, as it is stopping asylum seekers from launching essential challenges against the deportation, it is also unfair as asylum seekers’ houses are usually dawn-raided or they are caught at reporting centres and their rights are completely ignored as they are not able to contact their lawyers and stop the removal. The policy is also seen to be misapplied by the Home Office as they use it in other circumstances, for example just to speed up removal directions.
The judge, Mr Justice Silber, has ordered the policy to be quashed despite the Home Office arguing that the policy was not often used and only a total of 145 since March 2007 as well as safeguards being used to stop human rights breaches.
As with most Court rulings, the right of appeal is given and for this the Home Office intends to exercise its right and lodge an appeal. The Home Office argues that it “remains committed to removing individuals with no right in the UK as quickly as possible”.
Lorin Sulaiman, Ergen & Sharif