Hundreds of asylum seekers ‘set for payouts’ in torture ruling
HUNDREDS of refugees who survived torture before seeking asylum in the UK could claim compensation after a court ruled they were illegally locked up by the Government.
The Home Office acted unlawfully by placing them in immigration detention centres during the asylum process despite doctors submitting evidence of abuse and ill-treatment.
In a key ruling yesterday, one of the UK’s most senior judges backed a legal challenge by seven former detainees including victims of rape, trafficking, sexual exploitation, homophobic attacks, a child abused by loan sharks and a young man kidnapped and abused by the Taliban.
Mr Justice Ouseley said the Home Office policy on how victims of torture are treated after arriving in Britain ‘lacked a rational or evidence basis’.
Lawyers acting for the torture victims said the ruling could mean ‘potentially hundreds’ of refugees will be in line for payouts. Some individuals could be freed from detention.
Home Office policy states that asylum seekers who have been tortured should only be locked up in exceptional circumstances because of the risk of them suffering further trauma behind bars.
But in September last year Home Secretary Amber Rudd introduced a new definition of torture that critics claimed was too narrow. The seven former detainees and a charity brought the case insisting that this meant only those tortured by foreign governments or terror groups were spared detention in the UK.
They claimed the definition failed to protect those mistreated by individuals or groups or people trafficked into the country. The legal challenge argued that this had led to ‘many’ detainees no longer being recognised as victims of torture.
At the High Court, Mr Justice Ouseley said the level of dam-
‘Traumatised survivors’
ages awarded to the successful asylum seekers would be determined at a later hearing.
The seven claimants included a 39-year-old bisexual Nigerian asylum seeker, a 44-year-old Tanzanian woman who was abused by her Polish partner and a 20- year- old Vietnamese who was forced into prostitution to pay off her dead parents’ debts.
The Nigerian man – named only as PO – said he was attacked in his own country due to his sexuality. He said: ‘The policy allowed the Home Office to turn a blind eye to my suffering and the suffering of hundreds of other torture survivors.
‘Although I welcome the decision, it is still upsetting that the Home Office, who should protect people like me, rejected me and put me in detention which reminded me of the ordeal I suffered in my country of origin.’
Medical Justice, the charity behind the case, said: ‘ The Home Office may face dozens of unlawful detention claims and is being forced to change how it treats thousands of torture victims in detention. Narrowing the definition of torture demonstrates its contempt for vulnerable detainees.’
David Isaac, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, said: ‘People who have been subjected to torture should not be kept in immigration detention. This unlawful policy has been scrapped, but the Government should now go further and strengthen the human rights protections for people in immigration detention.’
Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, said: ‘ We welcome today’s ruling – but it is a damning indictment of our Government. The Home Secretary ignored medical expertise, basic humanity and the law to sign off a barbaric policy to lock up traumatised torture survivors.’
The Home Office said it would not appeal against the ruling. A spokesman said: ‘The intention of the adults-at-risk policy is that fewer people with a confirmed vulnerability will be detained and that, where detention becomes necessary, it will be for the shortest period necessary.
‘The main focus of the judgment relates to the definition of torture. The court did not find against the adults-at-risk policy as a whole.’