Home Office loses Afghan hijacker appeal
The home secretary has lost his attempt to overrule a court order granting nine Afghan hijackers leave to remain in the UK and seek work.
The Court of Appeal today upheld a previous court ruling that to keep the nine men, who arrived in Britain six years ago after hijacking a plane to flee the Taliban, under conditions of “temporary leave” was illegal.
It allowed the men’s argument that they be granted “discretionary leave”, which would enable them to work and claim benefits, but would be reviewed every six months.
John Reid said he was “disappointed” by the decision, and announced that he would bring in new legislation that would make it legal for the government to hold certain people in Britain on a temporary status.
The home secretary had argued that although human rights concerns meant the men could not be deported, immigration law allowed him to impose “temporary admission status” on them, which limited their movements while they remained in the UK.
“The court has ruled that it is not open to me to deny leave to enter the United Kingdom to the Afghan hijackers, or people like them, whose presence we regard as undesirable,” Mr Reid said in a statement.
“I continue to believe that those whose actions have undermined any legitimate claim to asylum should not be granted leave to remain in the UK.
“I therefore intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity to take new powers to deny people in this position leave to remain.
“I plan to bring forward legislation to do this as part of the early bill to strengthen our immigration laws which I announced as part of the outcome of my review into rebuilding confidence in our immigration system.”
In the original ruling, which Tony Blair had dismissed as “an abuse of common sense”, Mr Justice Sullivan accused the government of “conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power” for failing to grant the Afghans permanent leave to remain.
He said the government had “deliberately” delayed a ruling two years ago which stated that, under human rights law, the men could not be sent back to Afghanistan because it was too dangerous.
It is the second time in a week that Home Office policy has fallen foul of the courts – on Monday, the Court of Appeal said the use of control orders to restrict the movement of six Iraqi terror suspects breached their human rights.
And responding to today’s judgment, the Refugee Council said it was now time for the Home Office to listen to the courts
“No one wants to see hijacking rewarded or encouraged, but the fact is successive courts have ruled that these men were fleeing from a tyrannical regime, faced death if they were returned and are allowed to stay in the UK,” said communications director Tim Finch.
“The men have publicly acknowledged the shock and outrage their actions caused. The best way to move forward now is for them to work and make a meaningful contribution to our society, until they can safely return home.”
