A decision made by the UK government to put a cap on the amount of child refugees allowed to enter the country has been upheld following a legal challenge made to the Court of Appeal, although it found the process for determining eligibility was unlawful.
The challenge made to the court was in relation to the implementation of the ‘Dubs Amendment Scheme’, a parliamentary amendment of the Immigration Act 2016 put forward by former MP Lord Alfred Dubs in response to the growing number of unaccompanied, child asylum seekers looking to gain entry into the UK. This scheme aimed to facilitate the legal entry of thousands of child refugees fleeing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa.
Since the Dubs Scheme was brought into effect only 280 children had been granted entry into the UK. Following consultation with local authorities, the Home Office then decided that the number should be limited to 480 child refugees and that the scheme was to be concluded once this number was reached.
The human rights organisation, Help Refugees, lost their action before the High Court which challenged the lawfulness of the consultation process the resulted in the figure of 480 and the application of the eligibility criteria.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court on the first ground acknowledging the complex nature of the consultation process with the local authorities, conceding that, while “cruel”, the reliance on percentage-based responses on capacity from local authorities was not irrational or arbitrary. The Court was of the view that the absence of specified closing date and the confusion around the effect of responding to the consultation process was also immaterial.
Nonetheless, the Court declared that certain aspects regarding the implementation of the scheme were unfair and unlawful, namely the government’s process for determining individual eligibility for asylum.
In order to establish whether or not a child met the criteria necessary to gain entry to the UK, the Home Office conducted interviews with children in the Calais Jungle encampment taking into account age, nationality, family connections, date of arrival in Europe and the risk they may be sexually exploited.
Following the conducting of these interviews, French authorities were given responsibility of informing the children as to the success of their applications. Many applicants were simply told that their applications was unsuccessful as the ‘‘criteria was not met’’, with no other details given.
The Court of Appeal ruled that his was a breach of the ‘‘duty of fairness’’ and that all children seeking asylum in the UK were entitled to know the reasons for their rejection so as to facilitate the appeal of such decisions.
Click here for the decision in Help Refugees v The Secretary of State for the Home Department.