Deportation is ‘too expensive’
BRITAIN can only deport foreign terrorists hiding behind human rights laws to two countries at a time because the process is too expensive, a longawaited review has revealed.
Dangerous jihadists who pose a threat to national security cannot be sent back to a long list of countries including Libya, Syria, Yemen and Russia, even if a guarantee of fair treatment is obtained, according to the report ordered by Theresa May.
Where assurances can be sought, the process is so complicated and costly the Home Office admitted it can only manage negotiations with two nations at a time.
Prof Clive Walker, an international law expert who co-authored the report along with David Anderson QC, the then independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, estimates that the number of foreign jihadists who could avoid deportation “probably exceeded 40”. His analysis goes on to warn that with increasing travel to Syria and Iraq, and restrictions on leave to remain conditions, that could “markedly increase”.
The review of Deportation with Assurances (DWA) – which was ordered by Mrs May when she was Home Secretary in 2013 but only published last month – concludes that it remains an important tool.
Mr Anderson backed Prof Walker’s conclusion that “DWA can play a significant role in counter-terrorism, especially in prominent and otherwise intractable cases that are worth the cost and effort, but it will be delivered effectively and legitimately in international law only if laborious care is taken”.
The scheme in theory allows the UK to expel suspects with guarantees they will not be mistreated, but in the last 13 years it has only led to the deportation of 11 people – nine to Algeria and two to Jordan. In contrast, France has deported around 120 suspected terrorists.
The failures of the initiative, which Mrs May pushed hard for, have the
potential to cause her some embarrassment. The most high-profile case was against Abu Qatada which, after eight years and £1.7million, she finally won in 2013 and he was deported to Jordan.
Mr Anderson QC said in his review that now cases have been taken all the way to the Supreme Court future hearings are likely to be much shorter.
But the hurdles remain almost insurmountable due to the increasing political instability around the world and that the Government has expressed its intention to remain a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Furthermore, Mr Anderson QC was told in 2014 that “the Home Office only had the resources to contemplate the use of DWA in a maximum of two countries at any one time”.
Alongside the legal costs associated with deportation and the difficulty of negotiating a memorandum of under- standing, the deported person must be monitored to ensure that the conditions are not breached which can “consume huge resources”.
Condemnation of DWA means charities often refuse to be associated, forcing the Government to fund new organisations to monitor deportees’ welfare.
‘DWA remains a valuable policy which allows us to remove those who threaten to do us harm’
Only six countries have entered into arrangement for DWA – Libya, Ethiopia, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco and Jordan – of which the first three have been ruled out due to political instability.
Prof Walker’s analysis notes that in “rare cases” the ECTHR has said that assurances will not be enough. He advises that these cases could be defined as the “Countries of Concern” designated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office each year because of concern over their human rights.
After the Home Office published the report, almost six months after receiving it, Mr Anderson QC concluded: “The obstacles are now formidable. It remains to be seen whether the Government retains the stomach for the fight.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “DWA remains a valuable policy which allows us to remove those who threaten to do us harm while meeting international human rights obligations.
“We are grateful to David Anderson QC for his report and are pleased with his recognition that the UK has taken the lead in developing rights-compliant procedures. Keeping the public safe is our primary duty.”
They denied that funds were an issue when dealing with DWA cases.