Court of Appeal overturns injunction preventing the Home Office carrying out deportations to Afghanistan
The Bureau of Investigate Journalism (the Bureau) reported last week that the Home Secretary won a significant legal battle in the Court of Appeal to resume deportations of failed asylum seekers to Afghanistan.
Image credit: WikipediaEIN members can read the judgment in HN & SA (Afghanistan) (Lead Cases Associated Non-Lead Cases), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 123 here.
According to the Bureau, the ruling overturns an injunction imposed last August preventing the Home Office carrying out deportations to Afghanistan after lawyers for Afghan nationals appealed against the Upper Tribunal decision of R (on the application of Naziri and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR – scope - evidence) IJR [2015] UKUT 00437 (IAC) which found Kabul was safe enough for returns (see here for our earlier report).
In dismissing the appeals, the Court of Appeal judges emphasised they were making their decision on legal grounds rather than giving any assessment of the current security situation in Afghanistan, the Bureau noted.
Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice McCombe stated: "Our task, at its root, is to assess the lawfulness of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal as to the lawfulness of the respondent's decisions in the individual cases, in the context of the appellants assertions that they faced dangers entitling them to subsidiary protection within the meaning of the Qualification Directive."
According to the Bureau, the ruling could lead to hundreds of failed asylum seekers being returned to Afghanistan on special charter flights.
The solicitor for the appellant HN told the Bureau: "The Home Office's intention now will be to remove people to Afghanistan, there's no doubt about that. They've been hampered in their efforts to charter flights every month, which they've pushed in the past."
The solicitor, Toufique Hossain, added: "With the rise of Islamic State and frequent attacks by the Taliban giving rise to an internal armed conflict, our view is that these claimants have further claims for protection. We will not give up the fight for our clients. They quite rightly will only want to return to that troubled country if and when it is safe."
Emily Bowerman of the Refugee Support Network told the Bureau: "This judgement will have devastating implications on many young people who have spent their formative teenage years in the UK and are now being told that they must return to Afghanistan. As boys who arrived in the UK by themselves, they no longer have the vital networks of support that they'd need to reintegrate safely, and we are deeply concerned that they will be especially vulnerable to exploitation, targeted violence and discrimination."
The Home Office welcomed the judgment, with a spokesman saying: "We welcome the decision of the court. The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who genuinely need it and every case is carefully considered on its individual merits. Where people establish a genuine need for protection, or a well founded fear of persecution, we will grant refuge. If they are found not to need our protection, we expect them to leave the country voluntarily. Where they do not, we will seek to enforce their departure."