'Firm and fair' immigration policies in practice...

Les Allamby, Director, Law centre (NI)

The government characterises its immigration policies as firm and fair. It is interesting to benchmark this against the recent treatment of an asylum seeker in Belfast.

Sara (not her real name) is from Eritrea. She has two children aged (10) and (7) and fled the civil war in Eritrea many years ago. She was officially recognised by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees as a refugee in Sudan. Unfortunately, she and her children were again forced to flee and initially escaped to Malta. The family was held in prison and a detention camp for some time and then fled to Northern Ireland. She met and married a Sudanese man who is also an asylum seeker. Under the Dublin Convention, the Home Office may consider removing her back to Malta to deal with her asylum application.

In these circumstances, Sara and her children will almost certainly be detained in prison and in squalid conditions. Anticipating a decision on this issue, the Law Centre wrote to the Home Office expressing concerns for the well-being of Sara and the children if was removed to Malta. The Home Office replied that such representations were premature as no decision had been taken on the application and only once any decision was made would it be appropriate to set out attenuating circumstances.

The Home Office subsequently made a decision to remove Sara to Malta. Before informing the Law Centre, the Immigration Service called at her home just after seven in the morning and lifted her and her two children who were in their school uniform getting ready for school. Sara and her children were separated and placed in two prison vans. On the journey to a police station, Sara tried to commit suicide. On arrival at the police station, no medical assessment of her condition was made, no doctor or other clinician called and she was not taken to hospital. Sara and the children were removed to Dungavel Removal Centre in Scotland. On arrival, Sara and the children were separated again as the children were taken into social services care. The authorities in Dungavel were not told about her suicide attempt. As a result, another 24 hours passed before she received medical attention as part of the routine procedures applied to new detainees.

The Law Centre was granted an emergency High Court order to suspend her removal and arrange the transfer of the family back to Northern Ireland. The children were brought back to their stepfather and Sara was to be detained in Hydebank Detention Centre in Belfast. We have now got her bail and the family has been reunited. We will now make representations to prevent her removal back to Malta.

The treatment of Sara and her children raises many issues. What regard was given to the health and well being of Sara and the children before removal since, if they had contacted her GP she would have advised that there was a risk of self harm if she was removed from NI and separared from her husband? Why did Sara receive no medical assessment and treatment following her suicide attempt? Why were the authorities in Dungavel not told of her suicide attempt so she could receive treatment and be monitored? Why was the Law Centre not informed of the decision to send her back to Malta until after removal to Scotland had commenced?

The Law Centre is taking up these issues with the Home Office and, alongside Amnesty International, NICEM and Refugee Action Group, will meet the immigration minister Tony McNulty in December to discuss this and other issues.

If Sara’s case is a typical example, ‘brutal and barbaric’ would be a better description than ‘firm and fair’ for immigration removals policy.