IMMIGRATION: Prisoners of "War"
01 January 1991
IMMIGRATION: Prisoners of "War"
artdoc May=1991
Statewatch no.1 March/April 1991
Gulf War hostilities against Iraqi and other Arab people started early in
Britain. In September 1990, the immigration rules were changed so as to
prohibit the entry (and re-entry) of Iraqi students, and 23 Iraqis were expelled
on national security grounds. Re-entry visas for other Iraqi nationals, many
of whom are refugees from Saddam Hussein's regime, were delayed for months.
From September onwards Iraqis entering Britain were subjected to thorough
personal and baggage checks and questioning about their attitude to Saddam
Hussein (UKCOSA Briefing January 1991). On 3 January a further 67 Iraqis were
served with notices of intention to deport them, again on national security
grounds.
In the days immediately following the outbreak of war in the Gulf, 63 more
Iraqis and seven Palestinians were served with notices of intention to deport
them. On 18 January the Home Office issued new rules prohibiting the granting
of visas, leave to enter or extensions of stay to all Iraqis and requiring all
those with limited leave to stay (ie visitors, students and short-stay
businessmen) to register immediately with the police. Although the penalty for
failing to register is a fine of up to ¼l000 and a possible recommendation for
deportation, notices were not sent to individuals affected by the new
requirement; instead, advertisements were placed in the Arab press (Home Office
Press Releases 16/17/18.1.91) A further 32 Iraqis were detained on 23 January,
and fifteen deportees were flown to Amman. One told reporters there that he had
been held in prison for eight days and then deported with no evidence against
him. He had been studying in the UK for six years. He accused Britain of anti-
Arab racism.
Those who decided to challenge their detention and proposed deportation
received first encouragement, then a slap in the face from the courts. On 22
January High Court Judge Simon Brown gave a stateless couple Mr and Mrs B, leave
to challenge the Home office decision, saying `there is an urgent need to decide
whether this is... internment by the back door'. By the following day the same
judge had decided that the urgent need no longer existed. `The court cannot
interfere in matters of national security', he said, refusing the application
of Abbas Cheblak, a moderate with a public history of opposition to Saddam
Hussein. Besides, he reminded detainees, they had the right to make
representations before the three `wise men', the panel whose advice the Home
Office would consider before deporting. The panel of advisers system for
reviewing national security deportations was set up in 1971, after the Labour
government rejected the recommend-ations in the 1968 Wilson committee's report.
The report said deportations should 'not be exempt from the fundamental
principle that any administrative decision should be subject to scrutiny and
appeal before execution'. When in 1976 American journalist Mark Hosenball
challenged the procedure as unfair, Lord Denning, in the Court of Appeal,
agreed, but said that `the rules of natural justice have to be modified in
regard to foreigners who prove themselves unwelcome and ought to be deported'.
Detainees received, by way of particulars of their offence to Britain's
security, a standard form letter saying:
`The Iraqi government has openly threatened to take terrorist action against
unspecified Western targets if hostilities break out in the Gulf. In the
light of this, your known links and activities in connection with the Iraqi
regime make your presence in the United Kingdom an unacceptable security
risk'.
The Home office intended to rush all the hearings through in three days listing
them at the rate of eight a day. Only after lawyers acting for the detainees
threatened High Court proceedings did the panel chair, Lord Justice Lloyd, agree
to adjourn c