The majority of asylum seekers threatened with removal to Rwanda were not tagged on release from detention despite the Home Office’s intention to have them fitted.
Ministers were accused of making policy based on “cruel and unnecessary political posturing rather than necessity and efficiency” after it emerged that the plan to tag this cohort to prevent them from absconding had rarely been applied.
The guidance, published by the Home Office on June 15, a day after the first planned flight to remove asylum seekers in East Africa landed, outlined that under a new pilot, some of those traveling to Britain would take “unnecessary and dangerous routes”. , will be equipped with electronic tags.
It states that if the marking conditions are violated, asylum seekers may be detained and deported, subject to administrative arrest or criminal prosecution.
Boris Johnson later hit back at criticism of the plan, saying it was introduced to “make sure asylum seekers can’t just disappear into the rest of the country”.
But lawyers say most asylum seekers who were detained before the June 14 flight have now been released without tags after bail judges ruled – or the Home Office admitted – that it would not be appropriate to subject them to conditions.
Pierre Makhlouf, legal director at Bail for Immigration Detainees, which helps detainees apply for bail, said the charity had so far provided representation in 16 cases to people targeted by the Rwanda plan, all of whom had been released under bail and all but two were released unmarked.
He added that the “overwhelming majority” of judges decided not to impose electronic monitoring.
He compared the failed measure to the removal policy itself in Rwanda, saying: “The Ministry of Home Affairs continues to trumpet harsh and cruel policies, but the reasons why they fail to deliver is because of the very crudeness and cruelty involved .
“This is the inevitable consequence of creating politics based on cruel and unnecessary political posturing rather than necessity and efficiency.
“The government’s approach to electronic surveillance is unlawful if it fails to consider the specific circumstances of each case.”
Home Office guidance published last month states that while evidence of medical problems, torture and modern slavery will be taken into account when deciding whether to flag an asylum seeker, these factors are “not in [themselves] prohibits the imposition of such a condition”.
“In many cases, even where there is some evidence in favor of eliminating electronic surveillance, it may generally be appropriate to maintain electronic surveillance because of other relevant factors,” it states.
Graham McGregor, campaigns manager at Detention Action, said: “We have supported many people ankle-tagged by the Home Office who have told us how degrading the practice is.
“Even if rarely used, the Home Office’s policy of branding the ankles of people threatened by politics in Rwanda is clearly unenforceable and an affront to their rights and dignity.”
This comes after the courts granted an application to postpone a judicial review of the legality of the policy in Rwanda. It was due to be heard on July 18, but was postponed until September.
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government will not be deterred as we plan the next flight to Rwanda.
“The tagging policy is currently being piloted to test its effectiveness, but migrants continue to be tagged, so to suggest that it is not working is wrong. Suitability assessments are made prior to any decision to implement electronic monitoring.
Add Comment