APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by Mrs Helen Kimble
I am a founder member of Asylum Welcome and
have been visiting Campsfield regularly for the past nine years.
1. METHODS OF
REMOVAL
(a) There are no humane methods of removal,
for people whose valid claims for asylum, documented but disbelieved
by adjudicators, have been refused. Forced removals happen all
too often to those terrified of being sent back to further persecution,
and convinced of the justice of their claim. I have known far
too many such cases in the nine years I have been visiting Campsfield.
(b) In detention/removal centres, detainees
are normally removed from their rooms in the very early hours
of the morning, when they have no chance to contact their lawyers,
visitors, family or friends. They are taken off to a locked room
without their possessions, which are packed for them, personal
items often being lost. This abuse has gone on at Campsfield for
the past nine years, to my personal knowledge, and should be stopped.
(c) As for those living in the community,
already the police have—and soon Immigration officers will
have, under the new Bill—rights of forced entry and removal.
There are many examples of excessive force being used, leading
to at least one death (Joy Gardner). Safeguards should be introduced.
(d) Some examples of inhumane removal methods:
(i) Aziz Ahmed, a Tanzanian forcibly removed
from Heathrow on 31 August, 2002, was forcibly removed by being
hit on the head and knocked unconscious before being dragged to
the plane. It would be more humane than this to drug people determined
to resist. But forced medication would no doubt breach their human
rights.
(ii) The forced entry into a mosque by police
in riot gear to detain Mr and Mrs Ahmadi, and the subsequent snatching
of their children on a legal visit to their detained parents,
are examples of inhumane practice which should be forbidden. The
removal of the family to Germany was ruled illegal by a judge,
but they are still there, pending an appeal by the Home Office,
regardless of the trauma to the whole family and the reneging
by the German government on undertakings to the Home Office.
(iii) Even more appalling was the removal
of the Garza family, whose children were settled in school, the
mother was suffering from PTSD and the baby from cerebral palsy,
as a result of her mother having been kicked during pregnancy.
On 21.10.02 the security escorts actually snatched the baby from
her mother's arms to force the latter to get on to the plane.*
(iv) Jeffrey Gohwa, a Zimbabwean, who had
been seriously tortured, and was suffering from severe PTSD, was
forcibly removed under escort, and handed over to the authorities
who had tortured him in Harare. Four doctors, including a specialist
from the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture, had said he
was too ill to be removed, but they were all ignored.
(e) I can supply further details for (i)
and (iv), well known to me personally.
2. CONSTRAINTS
ON REMOVAL
TO CERTAIN
COUNTRIES
(a) We understand that asylum seekers cannot
at present be removed to Sierra Leone or Zimbabwe. Other removals
are dependent on the willingness of the receiving country to accept
them. Nigeria, for example, has often returned people to the UK,
with the attendant cost of the return flight. But people should
not be held in detention when they cannot be sent home, as has
happened to many from Sierra Leone, and until recently to others
from Zimbabwe.
(b) We believe that there should be further
constraints on the powers of removal to certain countries.
(i) Especially to Afghanistan, a dangerous
and unstable country.
(ii) We regard as extremely inhumane the
removal of Roma people without any legal process, and attempts
to prevent them even leaving Slovakia, where they are subject
to daily abuse and harassment.
3. COMPASSIONATE
FACTORS
It seems to us that these are far too often
ignored by Immigration, in their decisions on who should be removed,
and when. The following should always be taken into account:
(a) The removal of families with children
is particularly harsh, especially if the children have settled
into living here and have become established in a school. The
evidence of teachers and neighbours should always be respected,
and not ignored, as it was in the case of the Daoud family, the
Ahmadi family, the Garza family and many others.
(b) The legal presence of a spouse or children
in this country. The government claims to respect the integrity
of family life, but too many families have been torn apart in
this way. The most appalling case was when Aziz Ahmed, the Tanzanian
mentioned above, was forcibly removed while his wife and little
girl were still missing in this country, having disappeared from
the custody of Immigration.
(c) The length of time the person has lived
in this country and put down roots in the local community. Contributions
to the community are ignored, as in the case of Abdullah Rahmatullah.
(d) Professional skills and qualifications.
The shortage of skilled workers and professionals in this country
means that the government is with one hand inviting teachers,
nurses, doctors and skilled mechanics to come from abroad, while
with the other they remove and/or refuse entry, refugee status
and the right to work to the many qualified refugees who are already
here. This anomaly should be addressed at once.
3. INCENTIVES
TO RETURN
VOLUNTARILY
In some cases, it seems that those refused asylum
have been offered cash incentives to return, and detainees are
strongly pressurised to sign a form agreeing to leave voluntarily.
But there are no arrangements to help them resettle in their country
of origin. These should be introduced as a matter of the utmost
priority. Asylum Welcome, the Oxford-based charity for which I
have worked voluntarily for six years, gives £15 to those
removed from Campsfield—if they can reach them in time (see
2(b) above)—but most of this goes to corrupt police at the
other end.
October 2002
|
