In this week’s newsletter:
- Home Secretary attacks “revolting” judges
- UKBA policies under attack
- dispersal puts pregnant women at risk
- use of force on children – UKBA backs down
- mental health in detention – legal victory against Home Office
- housing profiteering – G4S report
- deportation “reserves” – UKBA defies parliament
Legal news: update on Zimbabwe country guidance
Youth action for the rights of migrants
Parliament: update on deporting unaccompanied children to Afghanistan
The judges’ revolt and the Home Office’s assault on love
Theresa May, immigration judges & media myths
UKBA backs down over use of force on children and pregnant women
The home secretary, Theresa May, faced a legal challenge in the high court from four asylum seekers – a pregnant woman and three children – who face removal from the UK. They argued that the government has no policy in place on use of force against pregnant women and children in detention and does not have the right to use force against them. HM Inspectorate of Prisons and several charities have documented the use of force against detained pregnant women and children.
UKBA dispersal policy ‘puts pregnant asylum seekers at risk’
A report published on Monday by the Maternity Action and the Refugee Council says that the immigration authorities are endangering the health of pregnant asylum seeking women and their babies by moving them to accommodation around the country and so removing them from essential healthcare and leaving them isolated.
Mind and Medical Justice : “Home Secretary backs down in mental health court battle”
The charities Mind and Medical Justice (represented by Sue Willman of Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors), who were given permission to intervene in the appeal, say that, in taking this decision, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) effectively accepts that its policy of detaining people with mental health problems in immigration detention led to a serious breach of HA’s human rights. Read more.
G4S takeover has been a ‘disaster for asylum seekers’
Compiled for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the report also alleges that the allocation of the contracts to an international security company rather than a housing provider suggests that the contracts were allocated for political rather than commercial reasons. Read more.
UK Border Agency defies MPs over deportation ‘reserves’
and lots more … http://www.ncadc.org.uk