|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 15, 2022 12:54:03 GMT
Several months ago the High Court ruled that the Home Office practice of taking mobile phones off small-boat arrivals and extracting data was unlawful. Apparently the policy was in effect during 2020 and in that period some 2,000 phones were confiscated.
In a recent hearing the Court has ruled that the 1,300 migrants whose phones have not been returned are entitled to financial compensation, the amounts to be determined in a later hearing.
Per the Court, the practice - which has now ceased - was unlawful and there had been “a failure of governance”. The judges ruled there was no parliamentary authority for seizures and data extractions and that the legal power officials thought they could use was the wrong one.
The Home Office defended its right to seize the mobile phones, saying it helped officials gather evidence about the people smugglers who organise such journeys. “Our staff are fully trained to ensure any use of powers to seize mobile devices is proportionate, necessary and based on reasonable grounds of suspected involvement in criminal activity such as piloting a small boat.
Lawyers who brought the high court challenge on behalf of three of the asylum seekers welcomed the ruling, one stating “We hope that lessons will be learned from this case.”systematic extraction of personal data from vulnerable asylum seekers, who were not suspects in any crime, was an astonishing and unparalleled assault on fundamental privacy rights."
Another instance of proper judicial oversight of the executive branch or is the law being an ass (yet) again?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 14:07:11 GMT
It wasn't lawful. Sounds like that was pretty clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2022 14:31:08 GMT
I can see two sides to this issue
On the one hand - As soon as a person steps onto British territory, they are answerable to the laws of this country. An asylum seeker or refugee IS NOT a criminal, or a criminal suspect, and therefore it would be wrong, and illegal to take away their mobile phone.
On the other hand - a foreign national entering the country, and without accredited identification, possibly no passport, is a potential risk.
The simple answer is to create a law within the legal framework, on the basis of the security of the country, in which immigration officers are able to examine all mobile devices held by refugees and asylum seekers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 15, 2022 14:46:34 GMT
It wasn't lawful. Sounds like that was pretty clear. Taking that rationale to its logical conclusion you would have to say any interaction the government has with asylum seekers is unlawful unless it has been specifically authorised by Parliament.
At some point common sense has to enter the picture and just because something is 'unlawful' in a narrowly legalistic sense should not mean its value in serving the public interest has to be completely discounted.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 14:52:26 GMT
If I go shopping in town, the police can't confiscate my phone. Nor would I wish them to have the right to. None of their business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2022 15:13:39 GMT
andrewbrown Does have a relevant point
An asylum seeker is no more of a criminal suspect than what a shopper is
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 15, 2022 15:15:56 GMT
If I go shopping in town, the police can't confiscate my phone. Nor would I wish them to have the right to. None of their business. When you're out shopping presumably you're unlikely to come under suspicion of commiting an immigration offence or indeed of any.
As noted earlier, common sense has to come into the equation somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 15, 2022 15:17:55 GMT
... The simple answer is to create a law within the legal framework, on the basis of the security of the country, in which immigration officers are able to examine all mobile devices held by refugees and asylum seekers. Yes, you're right. With perfect hindsight that's the obvious solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 15, 2022 15:21:45 GMT
andrewbrown Does have a relevant point An asylum seeker is no more of a criminal suspect than what a shopper is Is there any data to support that assertion? |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Oct 15, 2022 15:22:48 GMT
The question for me is how many of these channel migrants are asylum seekers vs economic migrants.
The latter and probably larger group are breaking the law in arriving in our country in this manner so effectively are 'criminals'.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 15:33:01 GMT
If they choose to seek asylum, then they are asylum seekers. If they don't, then they are not. That isn't so much of a complicated question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 15, 2022 15:58:26 GMT
With the coming into force of the Nationality and Borders Bill at the end of June there are actually two classes of asylum seeker: those whose claim will be handled by the UK and those whose won't.
At the moment this distinction is not acted upon while the Rwanda judicial review is in progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Oct 15, 2022 17:29:12 GMT
If I go shopping in town, the police can't confiscate my phone. Nor would I wish them to have the right to. None of their business. I assume you didn't arrive in town clandestinely and that you have a means of identifying yourself and you think people caught using a phone whilst driving, shouldn't have their phone confiscated to prove they were using the phone? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Oct 15, 2022 17:36:53 GMT
The question for me is how many of these channel migrants are asylum seekers vs economic migrants. The latter and probably larger group are breaking the law in arriving in our country in this manner so effectively are 'criminals'. It is more than possible they may be lying. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 15, 2022 17:48:42 GMT
I assume you didn't arrive in town clandestinely Well, I didn't tell anyone I was going, so essentially yes! and that you have a means of identifying yourself No requirement for ID in the UK. and you think people caught using a phone whilst driving, shouldn't have their phone confiscated to prove they were using the phone? I think we have already established that seeking asylum is not a crime, so not the equivalent. |
|
