It’s frustrating and dispiriting to read the judgment in R (Rostami) v Home Secretary. And I think difficult to work out what you think about the problem of asylum detention generally.
On one hand, it’s difficult with any humanity to face the prospect of detaining someone indefinitely, when he’s committed no offences (apart from the offence of failing to cooperate with removal procedures), because his asylum claim has failed and his lack of cooperation means he cannot be returned to his own country. At what point does it become unreasonable to use detention as a means of forcing him to cooperate? Are we prepared to face the possibility of keeping someone locked up for life? When he’s already shown a tendency to self-harm when in custody? I’m uncomfortable about using power attritionally to that extent, and in circumstances like that, especially when there is some research that suggests most asylum seekers, even as many as 80% of those due for removal, cooperate with the authorities when released from detention, rather than absconding.
On the other, can we really accept a situation in which someone who’s failed to establish any right to be in this country can nonetheless succeed in remaining simply by refusing to complete a form?
It’s a real policy challenge, this.
Well, equally, one has to come up with a convincing case for why it is justifiable to exclude people from the UK in the first place, which touches on all sorts of other policy issues.
I’ll add that I’m annoyed that as I write this – as regularly occurs – the aroma of someone smoking skunk in the vicinity is wafting in through my window. I increasingly want to find out who is doing this, and ask them to stop.
.-= Marcin Tustin´s last blog ..I spotted a ghost bike today =-.