Alan
Travis, home affairs editor, Friday September 07 2001, The Guardian
The
home secretary, David Blunkett, last night vented his anger at the
"human rights lobby" after a landmark legal ruling that a flagship
asylum detention centre is illegal and faces a bill for damages
that could run into tens of millions of pounds.
The
decision by Mr Justice Collins could force the closure of the "fast-track"
Oakington immigration centre at a former Cambridgeshire RAF camp.
The high court judge ruled that it was an abuse of the human rights
to security and liberty of four Iraqi Kurds to be detained at the
centre solely on the grounds that their asylum claims would be decided
within 10 days and without any evidence that they might abscond.
Up
to 11,200 other asylum seekers who have been detained in the camp
since it was opened by the then home secretary, Jack Straw, in March
last year may now have a claim for damages for unlawful detention.
Michael Hanley, the solicitor who brought the case yesterday, said
they may get £5,000 to £10,000 compensation each
but he expected that "hundreds rather than thousands" would make
a claim.
Mr
Justice Collins said it was impossible to see how it could be justified
to detain someone if they had properly claimed asylum and there
was no risk that they might abscond or otherwise misbehave.
The
ruling is a blow to the government's attempt to sort out the long-term
shambles in the asylum system; the backlog of asylum seekers waiting
for an initial decision has been cut from more than 100,000 in January
2000 to 20,000 now.
The
claims of asylum seekers detained at Oakington are decided within
10 days rather than the average 13 months of those living around
the country in the dispersal system.
"The
home secretary is deeply disturbed at the implications of the judgment
for the effective operation of tough but fair immigration controls,"
said a Home Office statement. Oakington, which currently holds 94
detainees, will continue to operate until the court of appeal hears
an attempt by Mr Blunkett to overturn the decision on October 5.
Home Office sources claimed that the loss of Oakington, which has
good legal, medical and welfare services, could make it more difficult
to deal humanely and quickly with asylum seekers.
But
the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and refugee welfare organisations
greeted the ruling as "a credit to British justice" and appealed
to the government not to close Oakington but to use it as an "open"
reception centre for asylum seekers as an alternative to dispersal.
"They can now comply with the law by simply unlocking the gate,"
said Mr Hanley.
