Three judges have now told the Home Office it was wrong to deport an asylum seeker back to Afghanistan – where he says armed men are looking for him already – and that it should return him to the UK at once. By not doing so, the Home Office has shown its contempt not only for decency, but for British law. Samim Bigzad believes he is a target for the Taliban because he worked in construction for the Afghan government and US companies. His asylum claim was rejected, but his lawyers applied for a judicial review. A high court judge ruled that he should not be removed while the process was under way. That order arrived when he had already been put on the second leg of the flight. He was not removed immediately and it took off shortly afterwards.
Then a second high court judge has ruled that the home secretary is in prima facie contempt of court and must secure his return. A third – rejecting the government’s request to set aside that ruling – has reiterated that he should be brought back at once. It now appears that the Home Office may be arranging his imminent return, although it said in a statement that it was correct to deport him and is continuing to pursue legal action. It was wrong to send him to Kabul and it should have complied earlier.
The zealous pursuit of removals is no surprise to asylum seekers and those who support them. But others will take note of this case too. As more than one observer has pointed out, the government wants the European Union to accept that UK law can protect EU citizens in the UK after Brexit. Many were dubious of that assurance and will be more so now. The Brexit secretary, David Davis, says there is widely held trust in British courts to uphold the rights of individuals. But there is much less faith that the government will listen to the courts – and Mr Bigzad’s case shows why.
