Government ‘unlawfully' housed asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield
The Government acted 'unlawfully' by accommodating four vulnerable asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield, a High Court judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Mould found that the Home Secretary had made 'a most serious and inexplicable omission' in failing to assess the impact on disabled asylum seekers and those with serious mental health issues when changing the asylum accommodation policy.
A result of this was that vulnerable asylum seekers with special needs or disabilities could be judged suitable to be accommodated at Wethersfield, the judge said.
Four former residents of RAF Wethersfield brought legal action against the Home Office, claiming it acted unlawfully by housing them at the site when it was 'not suitable' because of characteristics which included being victims of torture and human trafficking or being disabled.
The Home Office opposed the challenge, saying its allocation system was 'not incapable of being operated lawfully'.
The men all stayed at the former airbase near Braintree, Essex, between July 2023 and February 2024.
In a 136-page ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Mould found the Home Office was in breach of its duty in failing to assess the impact of policy change on asylum seekers with special needs.
He said: 'In my judgment, the claimants' case is plainly well-founded.'
Mr Justice Mould said the equality impact assessment 'makes no attempt to assess the equalities implications' of the proposed policy change, which means asylum seekers with disabilities or serious mental health issues may be judged to be suitable for accommodation at Wethersfield.
He added: 'In this case, the only conclusion I am able to reach on evidence is that the defendant did not attempt to assess the equalities impacts of the proposed policy change.'
The judge also found that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully and in breach of her duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in relation to three of the men.
Barristers for the men had claimed the accommodation was 'seriously inadequate' and there was a 'structural and systemic failure' to identify vulnerabilities which would exclude people from being housed there.
However, the High Court in London found that the home secretary's updated policies and procedures for identifying asylum seekers unsuitable for Wethersfield, was now capable of operating lawfully.
He added: 'I do not accept that the conditions of accommodation provided for asylum seekers at Wethersfield as described in the evidence before the court have been shown to be so deficient as to be incapable of providing adequate accommodation for asylum seekers.'
In respect of one of the men, a 25-year-old Eritrean national who cannot be named, the judge found that he had been 'unlawfully accommodated' at Wethersfield as the home secretary failed 'to have regard to credible evidence that he was the victim of human trafficking'.
The then-Conservative government announced plans to house migrants at Wethersfield, as well as RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire, in March 2023.
Migrants began to be housed at Wethersfield last July, with capacity currently capped at 580 despite initial plans to accommodate 1,700 people.
Clare Jennings of Gold Jennings, who represented one of the men, said: 'We are delighted that the High Court has acknowledged the significant failings in the treatment of our client, TG, by the home secretary, and the detrimental impact that being in Wethersfield had on his already fragile mental health.
'We are concerned that the continued use of large, ex-military sites, to house asylum seekers remains highly problematic and puts vulnerable people at risk.'
Emily Soothill of DPG, who represented another of the men, said: 'People seeking asylum, especially victims of torture and trafficking, are more vulnerable to physical and mental illness.
'They have the right to be treated with dignity and should not be accommodated en masse in military barracks.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social media exposes CA Dems with receipts on illegals after they attack Trump for cost of riot response
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have lambasted President Trump for the financial cost of sending troops to quell anti-ICE riots in their jurisdiction, which came with a price tag dramatically less than the bill taxpayers foot to pay for illegal immigrants in the state. "Just an absolutely shameful use of taxpayer dollars that could be used to actually HELP people," Bass recently posted on X. "Despicable." "$134 million that should be going to LA's fire recovery," Newsom posted on X. "Shameful." Many on social media responded to the posts from Newsom and Bass and commented on how illegal immigrants cost taxpayers billions of dollars in California, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller. Gop Lawmaker Demands Accountability For Lapd's Delayed Response Time Helping Assaulted Ice Officers "Wait till you find out how many trillions we have to spend on illegal aliens," Miller posted on X in response to Newsom. Read On The Fox News App "Now do the $9 billion you drained out of our state treasury to fund your free healthcare for illegals immigrants scheme," campaign strategist Andrew Clark posted on X. "How many billions have you spent on illegals Gavin? It's well into the hundreds of billions,"Conservative activist and filmmaker Robby Starbuck posted on X. "THAT money should have gone to your citizens and fire recovery but you gave it to illegals. Recent studies reviewed by Fox News Digital show that California spends at least tens of billions on illegal immigrants each year, far more than the $134 million cost of sending in federal troops to respond to rioting. A Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) cost analysis, promoted by the House Budget Committee in a 2023 press release, found that "benefits and services provided to illegal aliens in California alone in 2022" amounted to more than $22 billion. In a more recent cost analysis, FAIR calculated that services for illegal immigrants cost California taxpayers $31 billion per year. A 2019 study from FAIR found that incarceration costs of illegal immigrants going through the court process and being housed in jail cost California over $2 billion per year. Earlier this year, Newsom asked for an additional $2.8 billion loan to address a bloated deficit in the state's Medicaid program, which has surpassed budget expectations largely due to coverage for illegal immigrants. Watch: Dem, Media Outlets Insist La Anti-ice Riots Are 'Peaceful' Despite Violence, Injured Cops Last year, California expanded Medi-Cal to cover all low-income adults ages 26 through 49, regardless of immigration status, making it the first state to do so. Roughly 1.6 million illegal immigrants are enrolled in the state's healthcare program, according to state data, and 15 million California residents are enrolled. In addition to the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on individuals illegally in the country, a recent study by Wallethub found that California ranks nearly last in the country when it comes to return on investment for taxpayers. Wallethub examined state and local tax collections and then compared that with the quality of services received in education, health, safety, the economy, and infrastructure and pollution. The Golden State ranks 47th in taxpayer efficiency in the United States. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at California Democrats and pointed to the cost the rioters could inflict, already estimated in the millions as of Thursday, on the taxpayers in terms of property damage if not quickly quelled by federal troops. "Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass are conveniently ignoring the high price of mass looting, rioters destroying LA's family businesses, public property, and setting cars and other property on fire," McLaughlin said. "President Trump will not stand by while these lawless rioters loot and destroy a great American city. Newsom and Bass should be thanking President Trump for providing additional support to restore law and order and stop the destruction of LA." In a statement to Fox News Digital, Newsom Communications Director Izzy Gardon said there is an "irrefutable return on investment when Californians have access to education and healthcare." "There's zero return for taxpayers when Trump blows $140 million of YOUR dollars to pull troops off the border and away from wildfire prep just so they can sit idle in L.A. while he cosplays as a dictator and chases Fox News headlines. This isn't public safety — it's a political stunt and a disgrace." Bass's office directed Fox News Digital to a comment the mayor made on MSNBC. "We are a city of immigrants," Bass said. "We have entire industries that wouldn't even be able to function without immigrant labor. So this is terrible to families, but it also is a very powerful blow to the local economy if this is going to continue." Late Thursday, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California. The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. The Trump administration appealed that decision and hours later the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the federal judge's order. The court said it would hold a hearing on the matter on June 17. Fox News Digital's Jamie Joseph and Associated Press contributed to this reportOriginal article source: Social media exposes CA Dems with receipts on illegals after they attack Trump for cost of riot response
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Portugal Aims to Meet Defense Spending Goal of 2% of GDP in 2025
Portugal said it aims to reach a target for investment in defense to represent 2% of gross domestic product in 2025, reaffirming a plan to accelerate spending in the sector. A fifth of the investment will be on goods, infrastructure and equipment, in line with Portugal's commitments as a NATO member, according to the government program handed in to parliament on Saturday. The ruling center-right coalition won an early election on May 18, and Prime Minister Luis Montenegro is now serving a second term.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labour's insane economic policies are taking us back to the dark 1970s
We have been here before. The crisis that the country faces may be catastrophic but it is not unprecedented. Anyone old enough to remember life in 1970s Britain will recall an almost universal sense of utter hopelessness and resignation. Most people (but not all, as it turned out) seemed to be beyond any thought of constructive rebellion against apparently invincible forces. Decline was not just an alarming possibility: it was inevitable and crushing in its finality. The everyday business of life was not simply encumbered by incompetence and infuriatingly poor services as it is now. It was made virtually impossible: the lights were going out on a regular basis along with facilities like heating and cooking, which relied on electricity; the train service on which commuters depended (no working from home back then) was repeatedly withdrawn sometimes without warning; and essential supplies were obstructed, which caused desperate shortages of goods. It was often observed, with characteristic British irony, that it was like living through the war – only this time the enemy wasn't foreign. You know what happened next. The Thatcher Government broke the death grip of trade union power which had crippled the British economy, not just by new legislation that directly limited the unions' coercive practices but by dismantling the nationalised industries over which they had a monopolistic hold. Along with union hegemony, the suffocating grip of Left-wing councils was also brought down. I recall this particularly vividly because my family's life in the London Borough of Haringey had been turned into a class war nightmare by a vindictive Labour council whose rising star Jeremy Corbyn obligingly closed down the schools in solidarity with the striking caretakers. But the miraculous revolution did not happen overnight. The first attempt to beat the coal miners who were critical to this struggle failed because the deprivation that their prolonged strike caused was too great for the population to bear. It took the Government a year of stockpiling coal in a carefully planned strategy to survive another winter of strikes before the breakthrough came. There was no instant revelation on the political front either. The presentation of what soon became known as Thatcherism, with its transformational view of how wealth was created and distributed ('growing the pie' as opposed to simply dividing up the existing one into more equal pieces), was a major philosophical undertaking. This was no mere electoral strategy. It was a historic shift of paradigmatic social thinking: a systematic argument with the Marxist analysis that had dominated political discourse in its harder or softer forms for a century. It took philosophical thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Nobel Prize-winning economic theorists like Milton Friedman, translated into practical action by an inspirational political adviser like Sir Keith Joseph, to create solutions that no one could have foreseen a generation before. Yes children, that was how it happened all those years ago that Britain emerged from what looked like an inevitable descent into domestic failure and global insignificance. But how can this be relevant now? After all, we have learnt the essential lessons about how to create economic growth and encourage the spread of it through society – haven't we? We know that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish if actual wealth is to increase, and that the state can only spend real money that markets produce if it is not to bankrupt the nation with debt. And, what is more, if the state inhibits or depresses the ability of private entrepreneurialism to flourish, there will be no possibility of it improving living conditions for anyone. Surely we know all this – don't we? The awareness of it must be embedded in the consciousness of every serious politician who aspires to power. (The unserious ones who are so ideologically purblind that they will not accept it are, I genuinely believe, unlikely ever to be more than a disruptive nuisance.) Blairite Labour had to demonstrate that it had been converted to the new truth before it could hope to be re-elected. It staged a ceremonial renunciation of the old dogma with the removal of its commitment to state ownership of the means of production and declared itself enthusiastically committed to capitalist free markets – so long as they were accompanied by 'social fairness' (which was, unfortunately, redistribution by another name). After all that, here we are. A new Old Labour Government is now restoring the suffocating employment rights which make the dynamism and flexibility of entrepreneurial business impossibly difficult. It promises enormous amounts of money that don't exist and cannot be produced, because of the restrictions it has put on private enterprise, to public services like the NHS designed on the old monopolistic model. It caves in, without a struggle, to the demands of every public sector union for all the world as if the 1980s had never happened. What is at the heart of this? To understand such retrograde thinking, you must listen to the rhetoric in which it is expressed. The Prime Minister and his hapless Chancellor speak of 'working people' as a homogeneous class whose communities are as conformist and predictable in their attitudes and loyalties as they were 50 years or more ago. Their lives are seen as inextricably bound up (and limited by) a single local industry which must be renewed or replaced by another industry or by a technological revolution into which the population can be inducted. There appears to be no understanding that what used to be a solid, passive working class which wanted nothing more than safe jobs for itself and its progeny was awakened by the 1980s to the possibility of social mobility. The working people to whom Labour is offering its expensive beneficence may now quite possibly be inclined to start up their own ventures and move on. Pouring government money into regional capital projects will mean taxing their new enterprises into the grave. The revelation of the Blair years was that there were lots of working (class) people who did not welcome the traditional, patronising Labour message. They may still be a minority, these brave individualists, but they are the future and they will not be ignored. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
