Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yarls Wood immigration Removal centre in Clapham near Bedford in Bedfordshire [Image: Sean Dempsey/PA Images via Getty Images].

The Home Office does not intend to appeal against the court’s decision – but what does that mean, with Amber ‘Lock-Em-Up’ Rudd in charge?

Ms Rudd has already come under fire for failing to release an asylum-seeker who had been tortured in a Libyan prison – a valid definition of torture, even under the Home Office’s now-discredited Adults At Risk policy.

A court order was made for Ms Rudd to release that person but she ignored it. The Home Office then failed to provide written reasons for failing to comply with the order.

So – moving on to the current case – why would anybody believe the Home Office would act on a High Court ruling, even after saying it would not challenge the verdict?

Torture survivors have won a High Court challenge against the Home Office over policy which saw asylum seekers fleeing persecution wrongly locked up in immigration detention centres.

Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the Home Office policy “lacked a rational or evidence basis” and wrongly allowed many who had been tortured overseas to be imprisoned.

The Adults at Risk policy, introduced in September 2016, had redefined torture to refer to violence carried out only by official state agents.

The charity Medical Justice and seven former immigration centre detainees argued the legal definition was too narrow.

The detainees included victims of sexual and physical abuse, trafficking, sexual exploitation, homophobic attacks, a child abused by loan sharks and a young man kidnapped and abused by the Taliban. The Home Office’s narrowed definition of torture excluded the seven from being recognised as torture victims.

The judge stated that the definition of “torture” intended for use in the policy would require medical practitioners to “reach conclusions on political issues which they cannot rationally be asked to reach”.

Source: Torture Survivors Were Wrongly Imprisoned, High Court Rules


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook