UK Judges Rule Home Secretary Broke Law by Not Giving Migrants Even More Cash

Home Secretary Suella Braverman chairs a meeting of the National Policing Board at the Hom
James Manning/PA Images via Getty Images
Kurt Zindulka

Britain’s infamously woke judiciary has found that Home Secretary Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by not increasing the cash handouts to asylum seekers amid rising inflation.

In a suit brought before the High Court in Manchester by an asylum seeker referred to as CB, judges found that Suella Braverman had violated the law by not increasing cash payments to nearly 60,000 migrants claiming refugee status by £5 per week.

At present, migrants are afforded £40.85 per week in taxpayer money while their asylum claims are processed — on top of such taxpayer largesse as free accommodation in hotels and free meals.

During the court case, however, it was revealed that internal advice at the Home Office recommend that this should be increased to £45 a week due to the rising cost of living in the country, The Guardian reported.

The Home Secretary is bound by law to update the taxpayer support provided to asylum seekers to keep in line with subsistence living in the country, the court asserted — this at a time when much of Britain is crippled by industrial action as a result of struggling workers in key sectors striking for better pay.

A High Court order issued on Friday by Mr Justice Fordham states: “The Secretary of State for the Home Department [Home Office] has since at least 14 November acted unlawfully in failing to review the rate of asylum support to ensure it is adequate to meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers. Unless or until the Secretary of State for the Home Department increases the rate of support she will be acting unlawfully.”

A Home Office spokesman indicated that the government — which enjoys a substantial parliamentary majority and could change the law easily if it wished — will meekly submit to the ruling, saying: “The welfare of those in our care is of the utmost importance and we continue to make sure asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute are provided with accommodation and a weekly allowance for food, clothing, transport and sundries.”

The ruling comes just days before the High Court is set to make a decision on the government’s long-delayed policy of sending migrants to the African nation of Rwanda while their asylum claims are being processed, rather than putting them up in taxpayer-funded hotels or other accommodations in Britain.

The challenge to the Rwanda scheme, which was introduced by Boris Johnson and former Home Secretary Priti Patel, was brought forward by pro-mass migration charities and unions — including one which represents Britain’s ineffectual Border Force — after the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) intervened to block a deportation flight to Rwanda following a last-minute legal challenge brought forward by a migrant from Iraq.

 

The British judiciary has persistently ruled in favour of left-wing groups and indeed migrants themselves challenging their deportations on so-called human rights grounds, often leading to dire and deadly consequences for the general public.

For example, in 2020, judges blocked a deportation flight of mostly Jamaican criminals, including a killer and a rapist, on the grounds that the migrants were briefly denied access to working mobile phones while they were being detained.

In another instance, a judge in Scotland prevented the deportation of a Taliban fighter, who had already lost six taxpayer-funded appeals against his deportation, after he successfully argued that because he was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of fighting for the jihadist organisation — against Britain and its allies, presumably — he was in need of free care from Britain’s socialized medicine system, which he would not be able to receive in his homeland.

In still another case, British judges blocked the deportation of six convicted terrorists from Algeria on the grounds that it would violate their human rights and that they may face torture in their native country.

Aside from terrorists, judges have also blocked the removal of foreign killers, sex offenders, and paedophiles.

In a stunning example of judicial incompetence, three judges ruled against the deportation of a convicted rapist from Jamaica as it would be “irrational and not justified” to do so. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the migrant in question, Chan Wright, was later convicted of raping and assaulting three women as well as indecently assaulting two girls.

One of his victims, said: “I feel let down by the system. Here was a man convicted of rape and threatened with deportation who appealed, and three Court of Session judges allowed him to remain in Scotland.

“A great many people would have been saved from a lot of misery had he been deported then. I was completely unaware that he had previously been convicted of rape,” she added.

Judges cannot be sued or otherwise held accountable when their decisions result in people being harmed, however.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.