The ruling follows the Afghan hostage drama at Stansted Airport in 2000 which led to a four day stand-off.
A total of 78 people from the plane went on to make formal applications for asylum in the UK.
Home Office minister Gerry Sutcliffe called the ruling "bizarre", and said ministers were considering an appeal.
"It is common sense that, to deter hijacking and international terrorism, individuals should not be rewarded with leave to remain in the UK," said a Home Office spokesman.
"That is why the Home Office introduced a policy that, depending on the circumstances of the case, enabled the secretary of state not to grant leave of any sort to people who are excluded from international protection and instead keep them on temporary admission."
The question of what should happen to the nine and their families had caused a serious clash between the government and the judiciary over human rights law.
The High Court judge expressed his anger over the way ministers failed to follow correct legal procedures and "deliberately delayed" implementing an adjudication appeal panel's decision from two years ago.
The decision in June 2004 meant that, under human rights law, the nine could not be sent back to Afghanistan where their lives would be at risk.
The judge also made an unprecedented order that the Home Office should pay legal costs on an indemnity basis - the highest level possible - to show his "disquiet and concern".
Discouraging hijacking
Successive home secretaries had failed to grant the Afghans discretionary leave to enter the UK.
The nine were only permitted temporary admission, due to fears that to allow them to live and work freely in Britain would amount to "a charter for future hijackers".
However, Mr Justice Sullivan, sitting in London, said: "It is difficult to conceive of a clearer case of 'conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power'."
The judge went on: "Lest there be any misunderstanding, the issue in this case is not whether the executive should take action to discourage hijacking, but whether the executive should be required to take such action within the law as laid down by Parliament and the courts."
He ordered Home Secretary John Reid to grant the nine "discretionary leave" to remain in the UK, subject to review every six months.
Lawyers for the family said the decision means, subject to any appeal, that the nine and their families will now be able to take up employment and "get onwith their lives".
Following the ruling, the Home Office said: "The hijackers are not deemed to present a threat to the UK's national security at present and it remains our intention to remove them as soon as it is possible to ensure that they can be returned in safety to Afghanistan."
see video
The goverment said.
The Government immediately vowed to appeal against the "human rights" ruling by a High Court judge.
And Prime Minister Tony Blair personally waded into the controversy with a virtually unprecedented attack on a senior member of the judiciary.
He branded the decision "an abuse of common sense" in a saga that has already cost taxpayers £10million.
Mr Blair said: "We can’t have a situation in which people who hijack a plane . . . we are not able to deport back to their country.
"It is not an abuse of justice for us to order their deportation.
"It is an abuse of common sense, frankly, to be in a position where we can’t do this."
His fury was a direct swipe at a judge who accused three Home Secretaries of abuse of power in trying to deport the Afghans.
And Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "It is common sense that, to deter hijacking and international terrorism, individuals should not be rewarded with leave to remain in he UK."
Tory leader David Cameron also blasted the ruling. He said: "I think it is frankly wrong when we are doing so much to make Afghanistan a safer country that decisions like these are made."
The nine were fleeing the Taliban, who were ousted in 2001.
Their cases will be regularly reviewed as the situation changes in Afghanistan.
If they are still here after five years, they can be given indefinite leave to remain. The families will be able to apply for British citizenship five years after that.
The judge ruled it was the hijackers’ "human right" to remain despite the Home Office vowing to boot them back to Kabul.
Mr Justice Sullivan, sitting in London, said previous Home Secretaries Jack Straw, David Blunkett and Charles Clarke "deliberately" ignored the rulings of an immigration appeal panel as they devised ways to deport the Afghans.
The judge added the issue was NOT whether Ministers should discourage hijackings — but to uphold the law. He said: "It is difficult to conceive of a clearer case of conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power."
Immediately after the hijack, then Home Secretary Mr Straw pledged his "utter determination" to deport the the Afghans fast.
They were all jailed for five years in January 2002 for hijack, possessing firearms and explosives and false imprisonment in one of the most costly cases in English legal history.
But they were freed 15 months later when the Appeal Court ruled their convictions were unsafe because of a judge’s error in his summing up.
Since then, the gang have been living rent-free, claiming benefits and driving flash cars at taxpayers’ expense. Two years ago The Sun tracked them down to four £250,000 houses in West London.
They spent their days visiting visiting relatives, chatting on mobiles, watching videos or playing on computers.
Mr Justice Sullivan also PUNISHED the Home Office yesterday by ordering it to pay costs at the highest level.
Other politicians of all sides were stunned at the ruling. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett also hit back at the attack on him. He said: "It is the obligation of any Home Secretary to act in the interests of the British public.
"Any judge who fails to understand the signals which are sent in difficult circumstances such as this has missed the point.
"We have international obligations to discourage hijacking at all costs. This means considering any measures to remove them from the country. That is what all three Home Secretaries sought to do." Home Office minister Gerry Sutcliffe called it "bizarre."
His colleague Mr McNulty — responsible for immigration — said: "It remains our intention to remove them as soon as possible to ensure that they can be returned in safety to Afghanistan."
Essex Conservative MP Sir Alan Haselhurst, said: "I don’t think we should be party to anything which makes it seem hijacking an aircraft is a way to freedom."
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "We are surprised by this decision. Thousands of allied troops remain in Afghanistan maintaining the peace."
Sir Andrew Green, of immigration think-tank Migrationwatch, said: "This is not an abuse of ministerial power — it is an absence of common sense in the legal system. The judge was interpreting the European Convention but with a ridiculous result."
Yesterday’s decision by Mr Justice Sullivan means the hijackers and their families can stay in Britain as refugees — and could eventually get British passports.
Human rights law 'may be changed'
No comments:
Post a Comment