A Taliban fanatic and an evil Polish knife criminal... living happily in Scotland, and using YOUR cash to stop Ministers booting them out
In one week in a tiny Scots court 58 immigrants f ight against decision to send them back home
ONE is a young Polish thug with convictions for knife crime and violence. The other is a middleaged Afghan, a long-standing the country.member of a feared terrorist organisation. But despite their wildly different backgrounds, the two men have one striking thing in common – both are using taxpayers’ money to fight to stay in Scotland.
Both have already fallen foul of Britain’s immigration rules and been ordered out of
Because of crimes he has committed here, the 19-year-old eastern European has been branded a danger to society and told he must return to his homeland. The older man, who openly acknowledges his Taliban links, has demanded – and been refused – asylum, triggering an automatic order to be deported.
Both, however, are now trying to overturn the decisions, using legal aid to fund their challenges. And both were to be found last week in the same unremarkable office block in the centre of Glasgow, arguing their cases at one of the country’s least known courts, the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal.
Last month we published new statistics showing that, in the last financial year, taxpayers in Scotland paid a record £8.5 million to fund legal aid for an unprecedented 10,709 immigration and asylum cases.
But while the system is busier and more expensive than ever before, the bare figures only tell part of the story. To gain an insight into the extraordinary industry that has built up around the immigration and asylum system, the Scottish Mail on Sunday spent last week documenting the work of the tribunal.
Between Monday and Friday, no fewer than 58 appeals against Home Office decisions were heard by £110,000-a-year immigration judges in the building’s various courtrooms.
LARGELY funded by legal aid, lawyers for each challenger argued why their clients should be allowed to stay in the UK – while a legion of government lawyers argued the Home Office point of view. Overall, 29 interpreters were called upon to translate from 18 separate languages – including Mandarin, Arabic and even Tagalog, spoken in the Philippines.
At the heart of every hearing were men and women from all over the world – many of them granted anonymity for their own protection – outlining why they shouldn’t be sent home. In the immigration cases, they demanded visas; in the asylum cases, they pleaded for sanctuary.
Among those appealing for refugee status was a woman from the Gambia, who claimed she had been subjected to the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation and faced persecution for being a lesbian if she was returned.
Another woman described fleeing South Africa after her family had tried to force her to abort her partner’s unborn baby and married her to her cousin.
A man seeking asylum explained he had been a victim of human trafficking and had given evidence in court – meaning he faced reprisals by criminal gangs if he was sent back to Bangladesh.
In a very different kind of case, the tribunal also heard from a Bangladeshi businessman who has been in Scotland for 16 years and runs a successful company – and is now baffled as to why the Home Office want to him to leave.
Last night, lawyers explained that the system was becoming busier, partly because of the rise in migrants being sent to Scotland from other parts of the UK and partly because of a drive by the Home Office to enforce strict rules. One said: ‘The immigration system used to be more straightforward, but it has become more complex. More asylum seekers are being accommodated by providers in Scotland which may contribute to the increase in cases.’
Another said: ‘There also seems to have been a push by the Home Office to take action. Plus there is a lot of poor decision-making by officials that results in decisions being appealed and later overturned at immigration tribunals.’
One case from last week’s hearings sure to infuriate taxpayers involves convicted knife thug Bruno Budecki. Born in Poland, he moved to Scotland with his parents as a child. In 2015 – at the age of just 15 – he launched a savage knife attack that left his victim permanently scarred. Despite being locked up in a Young Offenders’ Institution for 18 months, Budecki carried out another assault the following year.
Home Office rules state that foreigners who commit serious crimes should automatically be deported. However, publicly-funded lawyers for the 19-year-old last week argued that Budecki had reformed and should no longer be regarded as a ‘genuine, present and sufficiently serious’ threat. Budecki will learn his fate later this year.
Three of last week’s cases featured the Taliban – the fundamen
talist Islamic group which ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. Despite being overthrown by British and US forces alongside fighters from the Afghan group Northern Alliance, the Taliban continues to carry out attacks in the country and is considered a global terror threat.
In two of the cases, men from Afghanistan said they were seeking asylum because they had been threatened by the Taliban and were afraid to return to their native land.
Ironically, in a separate case, another Afghan national argued that he should be allowed to stay – because he had actually been a member of the Taliban. The man, whose identity is legally protected, said he had worked as a Taliban driver for 15 years. However his lawyers argued that a change in Afghani politics meant his Taliban connection would lead to him being arrested if was to return.
They also claimed that the former terrorist, who is illiterate and uneducated, would struggle in his home country and would not be able to access medical help for his mental health problems. Lawyers for the Home Office argued that the man had ‘not established genuine fear of persecution’. Again, a judgment will be issued later.
In several of last week’s cases, the spectre of human trafficking loomed large. One 46-year-old man said he had been transported against his will from Bangladesh to the UK – but had later given evidence at a criminal trial in Scotland in 2015, which saw the gang boss who had trafficked him – Shamsul Arefin – jailed for three years for what was described as a ‘clear case of modern day slavery’.
As a result, the man said he was afraid of reprisals if he was sent back to Bangladesh and that he and his family had received threats since Arefin’s crime.
AMONG last week’s more puzzling cases was that of Bangladeshi national Nizamur Rahman, who has been in Scotland for 16 years but was recently denied leave to remain. Having entered Britain as the partner of a European citizen, he worked and paid tax before starting his Midlothian-based business, Naima Food Ltd, in 2015. However, after the break-up of his relationship, the Home Office claims he no longer meets the criteria to remain.
Last week, as Mr Rahman argued he should be allowed to stay, Home Office lawyers suggested he should return to Bangladesh and run his company from there. Again, a judgment will be issued later.
Many tribunal cases feature harrowing claims from people challenging the decision to send them home. One woman said she had fled South Africa after she was forced to marry her cousin – and that while carrying her former partner’s child, her family forced her to take medicine to try and abort the pregnancy.
Another woman, also anonymous, told how she had been subjected to female genital mutilation in the Gambia. She said she cannot return for fear of reprisal from her family because she is a lesbian – a claim the Home Office doesn’t believe.
Yesterday, the body which funds legal aid for asylum and immigration cases defended the cost as a vital way of ensuring justice is accessible. A spokesman for the Scottish Legal Aid Board said: ‘Expenditure in this area is prone to fluctuation, which can be due to UK Government policy and world events. The complexity of individual cases can also affect the amount solicitors are paid.’
A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘Anyone looking for advice on an immigration case can access the full range of publicly-funded legal assistance available in Scotland.’