The government has lost a High Court battle over victims of torture which could lead to some asylum seekers being freed from custody and given compensation.
Seven former detainees and a charity brought a case against the Home Office over how victims of torture are treated after arriving in Britain.
The government currently accepts that asylum seekers who can show evidence of torture should only be detained in exceptional circumstances because of the risk of causing further trauma.
But the charity and the seven claimants in today’s court case insisted that the definition of torture was too narrow and didn’t take into account people trafficked into the country.
Detainees at the immigration removal centre near Heathrow could be freed after a ruling on victims of torture today
They also claimed the definition meant only those tortured by a foreign governments or states were spared detention in the UK, rather than those tortured by individuals or groups.
A High Court judge, Mr Justice Ouseley ruled in favour of the asylum seekers in a case which could lead to hundreds being able to claim compensation or being freed.
The judge said the issue of whether those affected should received ‘substantial or nominal’ damages would be dealt with at another hearing.
The Home Office has yet to comment on how many asylum seekers will be affected by the ruling or whether any will be freed from detention centres.
Mr Justice Ouseley said the issue of compensation would be dealt with separately
The seven claimants who brought the case came from very different walks of life.
A 39-year-old bisexual Nigerian asylum seeker, a 44-year-old Tanzanian woman who was abused by her Polish partner and a Vietnamese 20-year-old who was forced into child prostitution to pay off her dead parents’ debts were among those used in the group action.
But the charity behind the case, Medical Justice, said the decision could affect hundreds of others.
A spokesman for the group called for the release of ‘at risk’ adults and the closure of immigration removal centres.
The spokesman said: ‘There is ample justification for immediately releasing all detained adults at risk so they can access the care and support they need in the community.
‘We believe that the Home Office’s denials of systemic healthcare failings for over a decade has enabled mistreatment of detainees and that its inability to stop abuse means that the only solution is to close immigration removal centres.’
The Home Office said its policy as a whole was not the subject of the case, merely the definition of victims of torture.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s department will look at whether changes should be made. Labour’s Diane Abbott said victims of torture should not be detained in Britain
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘The intention of the adults at risk policy is that fewer people with a confirmed vulnerability will be detained and that, where detention becomes necessary, it will be for the shortest period necessary.
‘The court acknowledged that the aim of the policy is to recognise a much greater range of circumstances which may make an individual particularly vulnerable to harm in detention.
‘The Government is now considering how it can best address the court’s findings in relation to the statutory guidance.’
Labour’s shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said it was ‘truly shocking’ that victims of torture were detained in this country.
She said: ‘The court’s verdict must be accepted by Government and they need to act. There must be no attempt to work around or simply ignore the ruling, as happened in previous cases. No victims of torture should be held in detention.’
Nigerian victim of homophobic attacks welcomes court ruling
A Nigerian man who said he was attacked in his own country due to his sexuality has welcomed the ruling.
The man – named only as PO in court – arrived in the UK in 2014. He was initially detained but released within a month.
He was detained again in 2016 and claimed asylum later that year. He later became one of seven claimants in today’s High Court case.
The High Court ruled the definition of victims of torture, and who should therefore not be detained, should be expanded to include people mistreated by groups and individuals rather than only governments
He said he was beaten, knifed and flogged in homophobic attacks in Nigeria, but was not deemed to be a ‘victim of torture’ because the attacks were not carried out by the state.
After the ruling today, he said: ‘Although I was recognised as a refugee by an independent tribunal, the reminder of being detained as a torture survivor is torture in itself. The policy allowed the Home Office to turn a blind eye to my suffering and the suffering of hundreds of other torture survivors.
‘Although I welcome the decision, it is still upsetting that the Home Office, who should protect people like me, rejected me and put me in detention which reminded me of the ordeal I suffered in my country of origin.’