THE Home Office has denied trying to influence the decisions of judges– but a Scots MP has hit out at the “astonishing” move.
Judges were asked to provide written explanations for their decisions in an official letter from the department.
In it, James Stevens, head of appeals at the Home Office, tells the president of the Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber the department is “surprised” at the number of bail grants given out in cases relating to people held in immigration detention centres.
Judges are not required to do this in law and in response Michael Clements, the chamber’s president, issued a strong defence of the judges’ work, saying: “As independent judiciary we decide bail applications in accordance with the law, which includes the guidance which has been issued.”
The number of people in detention centres has fallen from 1200 in January to 400 at the latest count.
The Home Office said claims it was trying to influence tribunal decisions were “completely untrue” and that the letter was “explaining transparently” its Covid-19 response.
But Glasgow Central MP Alison Thewliss, who chairs the Westminster all-party political group on immigration detention told The National: “This latest move from the UK Home Office to attempt to put pressure on immigration tribunals is absolutely astonishing.
“The independence of the judiciary is often what protects my constituents from the errors and malpractice of the Home Office. Most people who go into immigration detention are later released because there is no good reason to hold them, and no prospect of their removal. Others are held in detention for years because it would be dangerous to return them to their country of origin.
“I welcome news today that the numbers of people held in immigration detention have dropped, but the Home Secretary Priti Patel has serious questions to answer about what is going on in her department.”
And Scottish Refugee Council head Sabir Zazai said there is “no rationale” for detention due to the virus risk and restrictions on removals to other countries.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel