| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
How the Home Office carry out enforcement raids
By Taffy
Nyawanza
THE Home
Office’s internal procedures bible is a document formerly called
the Operation Enforcement Manual (OEM). With effect from the 17th March
2008, this document has been revised and renamed ‘the Enforcement
Instructions and Guidance (henceforth the ‘EIG’).
The new EIG contains guidance and information for Immigration Officers dealing with enforcement immigration matters within the United Kingdom. The accompanying instructions states that the EIG is presented in a form suitable for public disclosure although there is ‘a small amount of material that cannot be disclosed because it may damage the effectiveness of immigration control’.
As always that small part hidden from us is perhaps the most revealing in how exactly the Home Office think and work when it comes to forcibly removing ‘illegals’ and dispatching them to their unknown fate on ‘ethnic charter flights’.
The manual is divided into 60 chapters and makes for some interesting reading in parts. In Chapter 2 for instance, there is reference to what is called ‘unwitting evasion of immigration control’. It says that some people may unwittingly enter the UK without leave and gives as an example a person who presents a passport to the Immigration Officer on arrival which the officer then fails to endorse when an endorsement is required for leave to enter to be granted. That would amount to unwitting evasion of immigration control on the part of the person requiring leave.
The EIG then states that the unwitting nature of such entry will be considered as a mitigating factor, supposedly in criminal or enforcement proceedings. To assist with deciphering whether evasion was unwitting or not, the EIG instructs Immigration Officers to take into account the person's actions on arrival and gives as an example a situation where a passport was presented for endorsement but leave was not granted because of the Immigration Officer's failure to endorse the passport, rather than because of the person's actions.
Power of Arrest
But Chapter 31 is perhaps the most fascinating chapter of the EIG. It deals with enforcement. It states that all enforcement visits constitute immigration work of the most sensitive kind.
It confirms that amendments to the Immigration Act 1971 now provide extended powers to Immigration Officers to search persons and premises, to enter premises for the purposes of searching and for arresting persons and to seize and retain relevant material, in certain circumstances. It says that the implementation of these arrest powers is strictly controlled because the power to arrest is a radically new power that immigration officers did not always have.
The EIG states that ministers have given an undertaking to Parliament that no Immigration Officer will exercise these powers unless he has been properly trained to do so and has been designated by the Director. In practice, it may be difficult for a person at the receiving end of these powers to ascertain whether an officer has been trained and has been designated.
The EIG further states that the Home Office has made an undertaking to Parliament that Immigration Officers will not carry out speculative immigration visits, ("fishing" expeditions). It also states that the detention of persons who are not immigration offenders must be avoided.
In reality, case-law has consistently confirmed that even immigration offenders should really not be detained except in the necessary limited circumstances such as where removal is imminent. In fact, the EIG specifically states that detention must be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary. It goes without saying that the power to detain is perhaps the most extreme executive decision that the Home Office have at their disposal.
It helps somewhat that Chapter 55 of the EIG makes it clear that torture survivors, children and people with serious medical and psychiatric conditions should only be subjected to administrative detention only "under very exceptional circumstances." If a detainee fits into any of these categories, not only should they be entitled to bail, but to compensation for unlawful and wrongful detention.
In addition, the High Court judgement of PB v SSHD states that it is unlawful for the Home Office and detention centre managements to fail to ensure competent medical examination of detainees who allege that they are survivors of torture. Unfortunately, many cases still come to light where the Home Office have not arranged for competent medical examination in detention centres. This is not surprising when account is taken of the fact that 7 out of the 10 Removal Centres are sub-contracted by the Home Office to private profit-making companies such as the multi-national Global Solutions Ltd, formerly known as Group4 who in turn sub-contract health care to another private profit making company.
According to Medical Justice, a charity which facilitates for the provision of independent medical advice and legal representation to detained asylum seekers, the Home Office, with whom ultimate responsibility lies, does not employ any doctor to advise it on healthcare in immigration detention.
Home Visits
With respect to Home Visits, the EIG instructs officers to keep a local index of all addresses visited in order to demonstrate that officers have acted in accordance with the guidelines. Not only this, the EIG instructs that records must show the date of each visit, the name of the officers who made the visit and the name of the Chief Immigration Officer/Inspector who authorised the visit. Such records should be kept for at least 12 months. This is because, as the EIG admits, home visits constitute a most sensitive area of immigration work and one common cause of complaint is alleged harassment by officers who have paid repeated visits to the same address.
The EIG is, therefore, giving a platform for a case of harassment where there is evidence of repeated visits at a particular address.
The EIG further instructs that special care should be taken when visiting members of the opposite sex and when visiting households where only women and young children are present. This is particularly important if the persons involved do not speak English and/or come from a culture where women traditionally have a background role. It says that where practicable, residential visits should be conducted in mixed sex teams.
Visits to Places of Employment
With places of employment, the EIG instructs that officers must try to enlist the co-operation of employers in identifying employees who may be immigration offenders, unless there is reason to believe that this would undermine the effectiveness of the operation. If this is unsuccessful, the EIG says that visits should only be undertaken where there is apparently reliable information that immigration offender’s will be found. Judging by recent press reports, that would be every factory in England.
Chapter 31.11 makes provision for Religious Premises operations. It confirms that this sensitive type of operation will involve large numbers of police officers, IOs and in most instances will consequently generate a lot of media interest.
It then states matter of factly that some communities, as well as faith communities, may be unwilling to assist police/immigration in carrying out operations. That is unsurprising surely.
Pursuit of Offenders
Chapter 31.14 deals with the pursuit of offenders. It confirms that when visiting premises, it is not unusual for persons present to attempt to leave the building. It then states that unless an appropriate warrant has been obtained, an Immigration Officer has no power to stop any persons leaving the premises unless they are under arrest. Where an offender succeeds in leaving the premises, the Immigration Service policy is that fleeing suspected immigration offenders should not be pursued.
The EIG further clarifies that unless such a person can be easily and quickly apprehended without putting any persons at risk, no attempt should be made to pursue him. It says that to do so would place the officer in an uncontrolled situation and at risk of isolation. It further states that this applies irrespective of whether a police officer is present or not.
These provisions are not just internal instructions, they are the Home Office’s own policy which they are obliged by law to follow. The publication of the EIG is, therefore, a welcome development which should provide useful armoury to defenders of civil liberties and rights.
Taffy Nyawanza works for Bake & Co Solicitors of Birmingham. He can be contacted on info@bakesolicitors.co.uk, ph. 0121 616 5025 or visit Bake & Co Solicitors’ website at www.bakesolicitors.co.uk.
Disclaimer:
This article only provides general information and guidance on immigration
law. It is not intended to replace the advice or services of a solicitor.
The specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different
than would be anticipated by you. The writer will not accept any liability
for any claims or inconvenience as a result of the use of this information.
JOIN THE
DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website