Press release from Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

A devastating defeat for the government in the Court of Appeal today has provided hope for civilians fleeing Saddam Hussein's Iraq and other tyrannical regimes.

The government's policy of denying asylum seekers any access to welfare benefits or even the right to work lies in tatters as a consequence of today's ruling.

Under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, those who didn't apply for asylum at the earliest possible opportunity were made destitute by the Home Office. There was no mechanism for appeal and the draconian policy applied even if the individual was advised - and believed - that they did not need to apply for asylum at the point of entry.

Liberty and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants have led the campaign against these provisions.

In 2002, Iraqis topped the list of those applying for asylum in the UK - accounting for nearly one fifth of the 85,000 applicants. Shami Chakrabarti, lawyer for the human rights organisation Liberty, said:

"The government has had a terrible message for all those fleeing Iraq and other nightmarish regimes. They are not allowed to work. They may not receive state benefits. They must beg, steal and prostitute themselves or starve on the streets of the United Kingdom. This is an outrageous affront to basic human dignity.

"Our victory today marks a critical step in securing decent treatment for all. The court has found that it is degrading to deny people both the right to work and any access to support. The system operated by the government would have been unfair, unjust and inflexible. It is thanks to the independence of our judiciary and our human rights legislation that thousands of people fleeing for their lives now have a ray of hope."

Habib Rahman, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said:

"This decision represents victory for the basic principles of humanity and compassion which the UK has historically extended to all those who are here. Asylum seekers should not be treated differently to anyone else. They are fleeing from tyranny and persecution and are the most marginalised, vulnerable members of society. "The decision vindicates JCWI's assertion that the government's actions are in direct conflict with its human rights obligations. There is no justification for dividing asylum seekers into two groups and making one group sleep out on the streets by denying them support.

"The government should now acknowledge that it cannot compromise the basic rights of asylum seekers simply to achieve political targets and to deter them from coming to the UK. Whatever its plans are for future asylum policy, it will be expected to discharge its international duties to asylum seekers and refugees."

For further information contact:

JCWI: Tauhid Pasha, Legal Policy and Information Director, on 020 7608 7304 or
07813320212 or Habib Rahman, Chief Executive, on 0207 553 7456

Liberty: Shami Chakrabarti, press office, on 020 7378 3656
or Mark Littlewood,
Director of Campaigns, on 0797 456 92 99

Notes for editors
1. Human rights campaigners won an injunction in the High Court on 19 February 2003 to allow temporary access to benefits pending the Court of Appeal's ruling.

2. Liberty's and JCWI's intervention was supported by: The Refugee Council for England; The Refugee Council for Scotland; The Refugee Council for Wales; Refugee Action; The Refugee Arrivals Project; Migrant Help line; The Immigration Advisory service; Crisis; Shelter and The Child Poverty Action Group

Blunkett loses asylum appeal      The Independent Tuesday 18th March 2003

Source for this page: Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

The contents of this page are the sole responsibility of the author/s.

==============
Disclaimer: NCADC's web site is an important part of our work in educating the public on immigration, asylum and anti-deportation issues. As part of that work our web site hosts news and views from different individuals, organisations and campaigns working in the same field as us. The contents of named/signed articles are the sole responsibility of the author/s and are not necessarily endorsed by NCADC.