This was in yesterday's Times which had some useful detail:
"Lack of enforcement is frustrating, says former immigration judge
James Hanratty describes deep-rooted flaws in the Home Office’s approach in an extract from his book
It is difficult, in many cases, to enforce immigration decisions by removing the appellant. Many deliberately destroy their travel documents and invent another country of nationality. Home Office officials trawl their records and use the European database to try to ascertain the appellant’s nationality while the appellant is kept in custody and warned he will stay there unless he co-operates. Eventually, however, he is granted bail as removal is “not imminent” and, of course, he absconds. Removal is not easy.
There are no clear statistics to show how many illegal immigrants are actually removed or deported against their will. It is assumed that the figure is about 4,000. Not so long ago the Home Office had a fast-track procedure intended for manifestly unworthy appeals where the appellant would be placed in custody. The appeal would be heard in court and if the appeal was dismissed, as it usually was, there was an expedited appeal system from the immigration judge. If that also failed, the appellant would be put on a plane.
The fast-track procedure was designed for cases that were easily discredited. But the Home Office then became, as it were, greedy and started slotting Afghan and Iraqi appeals into this procedure. The Court of Appeal found in 2015 that the procedure was unlawful, as too little time was given for an appellant to assemble the case. If the Home Office had stuck to the original procedure with its successful removal rate, it might not have been banned.
This lack of enforcement by the Home Office was very frustrating. It called into question the purpose and existence of the [immigration] tribunal itself, except for one point. I recognised that if a lying appellant lost, the Home Office was unlikely to do anything, often for reasons of incompetence or sometimes because the country of nationality could not be established. But the tribunal was essential in protecting the rights of the tortured, frightened, and genuine. Good could come of it.
It was also frustrating when we informed the Home Office of apparent rackets and it apparently did nothing. At one time we noticed a tranche of appellants from Sri Lanka who had all received visas to the UK to visit their families or to study from the High Commission in Colombo, by using agents. The applications were made on paper without any interview and a visa was granted.
As soon as they arrived they claimed asylum. There had never been any family or college. I emailed the head of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) that either there was incompetence or criminal activity in Colombo and recommended an inspection. I received a poorly drafted reply repeating the mantra that there were robust procedures in place. There was no mention of Sri Lanka.
I wrote again, demanding a reply from the man himself . . . I received another email, rather better drafted, but still unlikely to have even been seen by the head of UKBA. There was still no mention of Colombo or Sri Lanka or an inspection. I gave up. The apparent lack of interest in enforcement by some officials was obvious.
I recognise the UK Border Agency is overwhelmed and morale is low, but that cannot excuse incompetence. For example, in 2006 some junior Home Office official opened a rusty lock in some Home Office warehouse to find 450,000 files. They went back ten years and consisted of applications that had found themselves in the “too difficult” in-tray at the Home Office. They called them “legacy cases”, as though it was something to be welcomed. Officials then began to wade through these files. Most people had either disappeared or were settled here.
Some ask why there should be any immigration control at all. As a broad principle it must be recognised that this country needs immigrants to bring their skills and diversity to our life . . . Immigration can be the lifeblood of a state, but we must also have immigration control. The government recognises that at least 300,000 more enter the UK each year than leave. [The figure was 248,000 in 2016.]
James Hanratty: “Judges must be fair and compassionate, but not stupid and ignorant on the bench”
James Hanratty: “Judges must be fair and compassionate, but not stupid and ignorant on the bench”
The Home Office must control our borders. Some say that it does not adequately do so, because our borders are too porous. The Home Office does seem, at times, slow to react to obvious abuses. I know that, in some cases, migrants will go to Ireland and then smuggle themselves into Northern Ireland and fly from Belfast to Heathrow on an internal flight within the UK, where there are no proper checks at Heathrow on arrival. An alternative would be to go to southern Ireland, then take some form of ferry to an obscure port on the west coast of Scotland, arriving at ten o’clock at night when there are no police, immigration officers or customs officers. These people would then get a train down to London and disappear. I pointed this out to Home Office officials, but my letter was not even acknowledged.
We must show compassion to those who are desperate and genuine. But to declare an open-door policy would invite economic migrants with no genuine refugee case at all.
There are good and bad practices in immigration control. Judges must be fair and compassionate, but not stupid and ignorant on the bench. Judges are not in the business of “kicking them all out”, but applying the law fairly and accurately. But lack of enforcement does undermine both the courts and the administration of justice generally."
Extract from The Making of an Immigration Judge by James Hanratty, Quartet, £20"