Government ‘unlawfully' housed asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield
Mr Justice Mould found that the Home Secretary had made 'a most serious and inexplicable omission' in failing to assess the impact on disabled asylum seekers and those with serious mental health issues when changing the asylum accommodation policy.
A result of this was that vulnerable asylum seekers with special needs or disabilities could be judged suitable to be accommodated at Wethersfield, the judge said.
Four former residents of RAF Wethersfield brought legal action against the Home Office, claiming it acted unlawfully by housing them at the site when it was 'not suitable' because of characteristics which included being victims of torture and human trafficking or being disabled.
The Home Office opposed the challenge, saying its allocation system was 'not incapable of being operated lawfully'.
The men all stayed at the former airbase near Braintree, Essex, between July 2023 and February 2024.
In a 136-page ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Mould found the Home Office was in breach of its duty in failing to assess the impact of policy change on asylum seekers with special needs.
He said: 'In my judgment, the claimants' case is plainly well-founded.'
Mr Justice Mould said the equality impact assessment 'makes no attempt to assess the equalities implications' of the proposed policy change, which means asylum seekers with disabilities or serious mental health issues may be judged to be suitable for accommodation at Wethersfield.
He added: 'In this case, the only conclusion I am able to reach on evidence is that the defendant did not attempt to assess the equalities impacts of the proposed policy change.'
The judge also found that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully and in breach of her duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in relation to three of the men.
Barristers for the men had claimed the accommodation was 'seriously inadequate' and there was a 'structural and systemic failure' to identify vulnerabilities which would exclude people from being housed there.
However, the High Court in London found that the home secretary's updated policies and procedures for identifying asylum seekers unsuitable for Wethersfield, was now capable of operating lawfully.
He added: 'I do not accept that the conditions of accommodation provided for asylum seekers at Wethersfield as described in the evidence before the court have been shown to be so deficient as to be incapable of providing adequate accommodation for asylum seekers.'
In respect of one of the men, a 25-year-old Eritrean national who cannot be named, the judge found that he had been 'unlawfully accommodated' at Wethersfield as the home secretary failed 'to have regard to credible evidence that he was the victim of human trafficking'.
The then-Conservative government announced plans to house migrants at Wethersfield, as well as RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire, in March 2023.
Migrants began to be housed at Wethersfield last July, with capacity currently capped at 580 despite initial plans to accommodate 1,700 people.
Clare Jennings of Gold Jennings, who represented one of the men, said: 'We are delighted that the High Court has acknowledged the significant failings in the treatment of our client, TG, by the home secretary, and the detrimental impact that being in Wethersfield had on his already fragile mental health.
'We are concerned that the continued use of large, ex-military sites, to house asylum seekers remains highly problematic and puts vulnerable people at risk.'
Emily Soothill of DPG, who represented another of the men, said: 'People seeking asylum, especially victims of torture and trafficking, are more vulnerable to physical and mental illness.
'They have the right to be treated with dignity and should not be accommodated en masse in military barracks.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
An open government advocacy group is threatening to sue a California county that is preparing to discuss firing its elected sheriff behind closed doors. San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships. The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing. As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors. 'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.' The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days. CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing. Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal. A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon. 'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.' The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony. Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website. 'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement. Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Transcript: French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," July 27, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on July 27, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to French Foreign Minister, Jean‑Noël Barrot, who joins us this morning from Paris. Welcome to "Face The Nation." I want to begin on what is happening in Gaza with those horrific images that we are seeing of starvation overnight, Israel has begun air drops. We know Jordan, other states are looking to organize more aid. Are you exploring any further avenues to bring aid into Gaza? FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER JEAN-NOËL BARROT: What's happening in Gaza right now is appalling. Gaza is- is- is now in the brink of a full catastrophe, and we've been working out, over the months, to try and relief the sufferings of the Palestinian people. We actually have 52 tons of humanitarian help stuck in El-Arish in Egypt, a few kilometers away from Gaza. So we're exploring all options to seize the opportunity offered by the Israeli government by opening the skies of Gaza, but we call for immediate, unhindered, and massive access by all means of humanitarian help to those who need it most. MARGARET BRENNAN: Has Israel responded to your calls? : We have, with the European Union, started tough discussions with the Israeli government, who have made first commitments that have not been fulfilled yet. In the next few days, the European Commission will make clear what our expectations are. We expect the Israeli government to stop the operations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation that has caused bloodbath in humanitarian help distribution lines in Gaza. We expect them to pay the 2 billion euros they owe to the Palestinian Authority and to lift the financial blockage that is now preventing the Palestinian Authority to implement its most basic missions. We also expect the Israeli government to bring to a stop its latest settlement projects, the E1 projects with 3400 housing units that might split the West Bank in two pieces and prevent the emergence of a political, a two state solution. But what we call for is, of course, the immediate cease-fire, the liberation of whole hostages of Hamas, that needs to be disarmed. And the entry, the massive entry, of humanitarian help in Gaza. MARGARET BRENNAN: You are headed to New York, to the United Nations, to help lead a summit to talk about a two state solution. Your president announced France will formally recognize the state of Palestine at the UN in September. More than 100 countries recognize Palestine, but France is the first western UN Security Council member to do so, and the United States opposes what you are saying. Secretary of State Rubio called it "reckless." He says it serves Hamas propaganda, sets back peace, and considers it "a slap in the face to the victims of October 7." In your government's view, why is he wrong? : So the reason why President Macron made this decision is that it was absolutely necessary to restart a political process, the two state solution process that was- that is today threatened, more threatened that it- it has ever been. And the conference that will take place in New York tomorrow and Tuesday is a very significant milestone, because by- by- by recognizing, or announcing the recognition of Palestine, France has been able, alongside Saudi Arabia, that has- that will be co chairing this conference with us, to collect very significant historic commitments by all stakeholders, including the Palestinian Authority president and Arab countries, in favor of the two state solution, and guarantee security guarantees for Israel. The two state solution is very simple, and I think everyone can understand what we mean by that. The only way to bring peace and stability back in this region is to have two state, the state of Israel and the state of Palestine, living side by side in peace and in security. This perspective is now threatened, and it's why the- the dynamic that we have initiated was so important, and this is why the conference that will take place in New York is such an important milestone. All these efforts are very, very complementary to the efforts that the U.S. have done in the region since the first term of President Trump. We share the short-term objective: immediate cease-fire, liberation of all hostages of Hamas that needs to be disarmed. We share the long term objective: peace and stability in the region. And what we're doing, by bringing the Palestinian Authority leader to recognize seventh of October as a terrorist attack, by calling the Hamas- the disarm- for the disarmament of Hamas and the liberation of hostages, by committing to deep reform of the Palestinian Authority, and by committing to elections within one year, by bringing the Arab countries for the first time to condemn Hamas and call for its disarmament, we are creating, or recreating, the conditions for this political solution that, again, is the only path forward, and we are paving the way. We're paving the way for the future Abraham Accords that the U.S. administration might lead. So I see our effort as very complementary to the U.S. administration's effort, rather than substitutes. MARGARET BRENNAN: Minister Barrot, the president of the United States dismissed what President Macron said, the U.S. Ambassador mocked it. Do you believe that your plans can succeed without U.S. support? : Again, our efforts are very complementary . We share the short term objective, cease-fire, liberation of all hostages of Hamas, and the long term objective, peace and stability in the region. In fact, we will welcome any further efforts led by the U.S. to implement the Abraham Accord logics. And what we're doing now with this very significant conference that will take place in New York will pave the way for such accords. But in the meantime, until the U.S. administration provides, through the Abraham Accord logics, a political horizon for this crisis, we need to act in order to facilitate the- or create an off ramp for the catastrophe ongoing in Gaza. Now the terms, we will welcome and support future Abraham Accords, but in the meantime, inaction is not an option. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you briefly about an incident that has gained a lot of attention this past week involving some young French citizens who were removed from a flight from Spain. The airline claims they were kicked off for being disruptive. The Israeli government came out though and said the French students were removed because they're Jewish. Have you determined whether this was indeed an act of antisemitism? : I have called the CEO of this company, who has- to express our- our serious preoccupation. She has confirmed that an internal investigation is ongoing. My team has been reaching out to the ambassador of Spain in- in France, and we've made the same request. We'll keep following this situation as it unravels MARGARET BRENNAN: So too- too early to say, despite what the Israeli government is indicating. : I cannot comment on that at this point. We've taken action as- as soon as we got, you know, as we got notice of what was happening, we offered support on location through our embassy to this group. We then reached out to the- the airline company, to the Spanish authorities, and we're now following the results of these investigations. MARGARET BRENNAN: France has been very active diplomatically on a number of fronts. It was just five weeks ago when the United States and Israel bombed Iran. Since that time, France has talked to the Iranian government, along with other European powers, about what remains of Iran's nuclear program. How concerned are you that after these bombings, Iran may now covertly attempt to make a weapon, and the world won't know? : This is still a risk that we are facing, and alongside Germany and the UK, we have been very clear, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and we've been, over the past few months, reaching out to the Iranian authority in close coordination with U.S. authorities in order to express what our expectations are. Ten years ago, we reached a deal on the nuclear program that allowed for a significant rollback of Iranian nuclear capacity. Of course, things has changed. Still then, and since then, Iran has violated all commitments it had taken at the time of signing this agreement. We now want a more comprehensive agreement that would encompass both the nuclear dimension of Iranian destabilization activities, but also it's the ballistic component, as well as the regional destabilization activities that Iran has been conducting, unless we- unless a new and robust and durable and verifiable agreement is reached by the end of the summer, France, Germany and the UK will have no other choice but to reapply the global embargoes that were lifted 10 years ago when the nuclear agreement with Iran was signed, embargoes on weapons, on nuclear equipment, and on banking. MARGARET BRENNAN: So France is ready to snap back sanctions on Iran as soon as August. Are you asking Iran to speak directly to the United States in order to avoid that fate? : We've been speaking with Special Envoy Witkoff, Secretary Rubio, on a weekly basis on this topic that is highly important for the U.S., as for Europeans. We- we have supported U.S.-led efforts to enter into discussions with Iran. We have pressed Iran, after the 12 day war, to go back to a discussion with the U.S., and we'll keep pressing them to do so, because indeed, if there is no solid agreement that can be found by the end of August, we will have no other option but to snap back, meaning to reapply those global embargoes, and we are ready to do that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Minister Barrot, thank you very much for your time this morning.
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Canada's Aluminum Subsidies Hurt the U.S.
Ed Fast, Canada's former minister for international trade, claims that, 'We don't subsidize vast state-owned industries' ('Canada Is the Best Friend America's Got,' op-ed, July 21). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development disagrees in an independent report, which found that Canada's aluminum industry is supported by more than $850 million in government subsidies.
