High Court orders housing support for failed asylum duo - I/H Emily Twinch 8/1/2010
The High Court has ordered the government to give two failed asylum seekers housing support, while it considers whether to grant a judicial review into changes to the asylum system.
The Asylum Support Appeals Project, which defends the legal rights of asylum seekers, claims the human rights of its two clients have been breached because they must travel to Liverpool to make fresh submissions about their cases.
Since 14 October last year, failed asylum seekers who want to submit fresh evidence to a claim made before 5 March 2007 must travel to Liverpool in person. They used to be able to do this by post.
The Home Office will not pay travel or accommodation costs and people are struggling to get there.
The March 2007 date was chosen by the government because that was the date it changed the way it processed claims. Those who claimed after March 2007 can make further submissions at centres in their region.
But there is a huge backlog of claimants. The Home Office estimates it has ‘around 400,000 to 450,000’ records of failed asylum seekers and had concluded 220,000 cases by the end of September 2009.
Colin McCloskey, solicitor with the Asylum Support Appeals Project, said it served papers in the middle of last month for the judicial reviews.
He explained the judge had given emergency section 4 ‘type’ support to two clients because they had not been able to get through to the unit on the telephone. This means the Home Office is paying for them to stay in private rented section 4 accommodation and has given them financial support via a credit card that can give up to £35 per week, per person.
‘You have to make an appointment and people have not been able to get through,’ Mr McCloskey said.’They [the two clients] are verging on street homelessness and they have not been able to get through on the phone.’
A spokesperson for the Home Office said that ‘insufficient funds or inconvenience will not be an acceptable reason for a person not being able to make a further submission in person.’