Time for a change on asylum

How thousands are detained in Britain without charge and the story of one person who chooses to visi

The long-running political row over the latest anti-terrorism proposals to detain people without charge for up to 42 days has been in stark contrast with the silence over the 2,000 men, women and children detained in the UK without charge.

These are the failed asylum seekers who are held for days, months or years in one of 10 prison-like, immigration removal centres scattered around the UK, and they are invisible.

But when they are noticed, it is generally by the tabloids and right-leaning think tanks. A recent example: The Sun reported that the ‘foreign lags’ in Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre are living in a ‘holiday camp’.

Well, for the past 18 months I have spent a couple of hours each week visiting these so-called foreign lags in Colnbrook and Harmondsworth next door, and from what they have told me and from what I have seen, it couldn’t be further from Butlins.

The two centres are next door to the Heathrow Sheraton and you could mistake them for anonymous hotels designed for delayed passengers and tired cabin crew. However, after the first glance, you see swathes of barbed wire, barred windows and uniformed officers milling around.

As a visitor, you require two forms of ID; finger prints and a photo are taken; and there is a thorough search. The atmosphere is a heady mix of loud, oppressive, emotional and distressing. Children are crying, couples are holding each other; and there’s me, talking to a stranger about politics, Hollyoaks, torture, music, desperately missed wives and children, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and the infamously bad food.

I started visiting detained, failed asylum seekers during the summer heat wave in 2006. The political temperature was also running pretty high and the tabloids were baying for the blood of the now ex-home secretary, Charles Clarke.

The tabloids were scandalised to learn that foreign residents were released after completing a prison sentence. “They must be deported!” they shrilled, and the home secretary hastily complied. Inevitably mistakes were made, like attempting to deport British citizens. Abdul, my first client, told me he was British passport holder, who had come here with his family at 18 months old.

He had committed a petty crime and on completion of a short prison sentence, he received a notification of intention to deport to Bangladesh. After a speedy intervention from his solicitors in the High Court, he was allowed to go home to his British wife and children.

Aside from British citizens, torture victims also should not be detained according to the Home Office’s own guidelines. Michael, 20, from Uganda, and I got to know each other well as the many months passed in first Colnbrook and then Harmondsworth and he told me why he came to the UK: he came to the UK after the 2006 Ugandan elections, he was, and in exile, still is a prominent member of the youth wing of Uganda’s opposition party.

He was tortured by the Ugandan authorities – it is clear to see that some fingers nails on each hand have been pulled out - and he told me that he was badly beaten as a warning. He came to the UK soon after. Michael was on the ‘fast-track’ system, whereby the Home Office makes a decision on a ‘straightforward’ case within 24 hours, with a 99 per cent refusal rate.

According to Michael’s documentation from the Home Office, one reason why his case has been refused is due to the fact that the Home Office does not believe his claim that he was very politically active from 16 and became a constituency campaign manager for the youth wing of the party.

Perhaps, thanks to the political torpor among much of Britain's youth, the Home Office’s scepticism isn’t surprising. His case continues two years later and will be heard in the High Court in the coming months. He is no longer detained and receives counselling for post traumatic stress disorder.

The Home Office states people should be detained for as short a time as possible before removal. Currently, I visit Kak Ahmed from Kurdistan, who has so far been detained for 16 months after a short prison sentence.

He has told me that he can’t get out of Colnbrook because someone with the same name as him failed to comply with their bail conditions.

He feels that he and his solicitor have presented proof of the mistake, but judges repeatedly refuse him bail, believing he will abscond.

His solicitor is now taking this issue to the High Court. Kak Ahmed has severe medical problems, which the Kurdish government have stated cannot be treated in Kurdistan. So he is stuck in the system and being stuck means being deprived of liberty with no end in sight.

The UK is one of a handful of European countries that detains failed asylum seekers indefinitely, with no automatic right to legal advice, with no automatic right to bail and with no automatic case review.

Detention of failed asylum seekers is at the cutting edge of human rights but the majority of people, campaigning organisations, lawyers, journalists and politicians skip over these invisible thousands to politically safer territory.

I try to make a small difference to individuals where I can, but this isn’t scratching even the surface of the problem; there needs to be a sea change in government legislation that will end the indefinite deprivation of liberty that even terror suspects (rightly) avoid.

All the names in this article - including the author's - have been changed

8 comments

Lala's picture

Kamranh - you clearly know all about the system to be posting such a provocative comment and rubbishing the article?
Have you met these "trained and experienced people in the revelant government department"? (You say relevant - do you mean to say that you don't know which department we may be talking about?) Have you ever read a refusal letter? Did you understand it? I'd be curious to know what you thought of them. When they say things like: refugee camps in Khartoum are safe for Darfuris (when the UNHCR say they are not). How about when they say, well yes of course it's illegal to be gay in Iran, but we don't think the government will ACTUALLY kill you. Or when they tell Iraqis that travelling overland in Iraq is perfectly safe. Oh! for Iraqis that is. Oh yes, and Zimbabwe and Congo DRC are havens of peace.
On the wrongful detention, again I presume you are well informed? You must know what constitutes wrongful detention? So you know that the Home Office can only detain you if you are going to be removed "imminently", or if you are a risk of absconsion - according to their own policy that is. But then I'm sure that in your books everyone is a risk of absconsion, even when we have no proof of that whatsoever. If he can't be removed and has not done anything to lead the Home Office to believe that he'll abscond, they cannot keep detaining him. It's unlawful detnetion, full stop. I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that the Home Office are trying to stall dozens of unlawful detention compensation claims? At £150/day of detention of your tax money.
And, it's "indefinite" detention because the Home Office can detain people for as long as they want to. That can be indefinite. Sorry - which part did you not understand?
Would it really scare you if I told you that 40% of people who are detained for 1 year or more are released because they can't be removed/are unlawfully detained? That neighbour of yours who just moved in next door...watch!!

Kamranh's picture

What is provocative apart from giving an observation of an article, an observation which is not emotionally charged? I think you have proved a point, being that it is not just tabloid readers who are responsible for a high political temperature, shrilling or scandalising. A mature debate would be much more appreciated

Unfortunately Lala, I am perfectly aware of which department. Most people just refer to the Home Office, but the relevant department which is now know as the Border and Immigration Agency (previously called the Immigration and Nationality Directorate). It is easier than calling them by their new moniker every time New Labour tries to overhaul the failure they have created

Just to answer some of your questions: as an ordinary member of the public I have not read a refusal letter, but would not need to. It does not relate to me but to someone who had their asylum claim turned down because it was not valid. Whatever way it is worded is irrelevant.

Yes they should be removed imminently, but if persons like the author and you were not giving false hope to these individuals and delaying the system, then the process might be speeded up and they could be deported more quickly. Another option would be for the people to agree to imminent deportation. They have failed according to our system and should accept that. Maybe once they go back, they should have a try at another country.

Don’t worry as a resident of one of the poorest boroughs in the country, they probably are my neighbour. This does not bother apart from in principle. The system obviously needs to be overhauled and nobody is denying that. However, I think we believe it needs to be overhauled in different areas. I belive it should be streamlined to speed it up whereas you believe it should be open-door

Chrisg's picture

Come on Lana, you are being very naïve and simplistic in your arguments, why would Kamranh need to read an asylum refusal letter, and how does that impact on his ability to have on opinion on this matter? That is like saying he needs to read his neighbour’s parking fine notice or their summons letter for not having a TV licence in order to understand parking laws or the Communications Act. It does not change the facts or impact on whether someone should be allowed asylum, detained or deported….it is simply a notice informing them of the result of their asylum application. How the result is communicated is irrelevant. They have not been successful in claiming asylum and that is fact.

On the issue of due diligence, it is not up to every member of the public to perform due diligence on each function carried out by the State. Does everyone need to investigate whether the Work & Pensions department is calculating benefits correctly? No, there are bodies such as the NAO to perform that. Do we as individuals need to investigate? No, some of us have jobs to go to and we leave that to the civil service

The simple fact as Kamranh states is that the Border & Immigration Service decides who needs asylum and who is successful in their applications. Thankfully, those with rose tinted glasses and clear biased opinions like you do not run the immigration service. Each case on asylum, detention and deportation should be looked at individually on the basis of the facts presented and not some emotive arguments brought up by people such as the author who visit detentions and are amazed to find them quite different from the nice safe flats & houses they live in & go home to. Let the immigration service do their job and don’t give these people in detention false hope. By doing so and therefore encouraging false asylum claims by their compatriots, you are diminishing the possibility of deserving refugees who flee torture & oppression from being granted asylum

Lana's picture

Kamranh you say you do not need to read a refusal letter becuase it does not relate to yourself. This is correct but you also do not need to read this article as it does not relate to you either. But you are taking an interest as you have an opinion in the matter and therefore if you have an opinion in the matter should you not get yourself familiar with the facts and evidence before commenting? You say the asylum seekers have failed according to the system but you are not investigating or even carrying out due diligence of that very system. I sincerely hope you are not my neighbour as I live in one of the poorest boroughs in the country as well.

annie1's picture

I do wonder about the future when this country can treat people so poorly. We used to be a beacon of hope. Someone in the political field needs to take a brave step and start a reasoned debate about asylum without all the surrounding hysteria. This includes the tabloid press. How can we hold our heads high as a nation if we deport people who have been tortured back to their torturers.

Ben G's picture

Good to see that people are willing to support this group, who are undoubtedly miss-understood. Many tend to think of all asylum seekers in a negative way - we should not forget that each one is a person with a family and rights.

gnuneo's picture

it is a shame that more journalists do not take even a little time to experience what conditions are actually like, before writing their hate-mongering in the tabloid press.

it would be a vast improvement were the 'press watchdog' to actually force such faux-journalists to spend a few days inside such a camp as punishment, when they write their complete lies, to teach them a good lesson about what their job is supposed to be achieving.

Kamranh's picture

Why would an article such as this be given any more credence than that in any other publication (including tanloid trash). This article is based on supposition from inmates who failed to convince trained & experienced people in the relevant government department of their right for asylum, but based on unsubstantiated comments to the author (one who is either emotionally or politically biased), following Hollyoak conversations, suddenly the failed applicants mentioned are deemed wrongfully detained. Can somebody please explain?
The fundamental point is they have failed in their application for asylum and are awaiting deportation. The only way to ensure deportation is to know where the failed applicants are.
Also, i beg to differ why this is referred to as indefinite detention. It becomes definite once they are rightfully deported

Latest tweets