The Attorney General fought the Home Office in the courts to try to help migrants stay in the UK.
migrant.
was unlawful as there was a risk they could be wrong.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument.
Lord Hermer is facing mounting pressure over his work as a barrister and accusations of conflicts of interest with his current role.
He has refused to declare whether or not he recused himself from advising ministers on issues relating to his former clients, including Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Fein leader, and Afghan families accusing special forces of murder.
because of Sir Keir Starmer’s human rights plans.
Mr Adams is set to benefit from a decision by the Government to repeal Troubles legislation. The current law, the Legacy Act, blocks his claim for compensation over his imprisonment in the 1970s for suspected involvement in terrorism.
But Sir Keir’s plans will reverse two sections of the Act which denied Mr Adams and up to 400 other IRA “suspects” also detained in the 1970s the right to claim compensation.
Deemed to be an adult
remains relevant while the Government looks for ways to cut historically high levels of net migration.
Under the Immigration Act 2014, adults who claim asylum in the UK are treated differently from unaccompanied children. It has led to cases where adult asylum seekers falsely claim to be children to receive more lenient treatment and find an easier route to staying in Britain.
Lord Hermer acted for an Eritrean man who entered the UK on his own and in 2014 claimed asylum as an unaccompanied 16-year-old.
He was promptly arrested as an illegal migrant. Immigration officers deemed him to be an adult and he was treated as such at the outset.
British immigration staff thought he looked to be in his mid-20s and Italian authorities later reported that the man had told them he was 26.
Lord Hermer contested Home Office guidance on how age should be assessed.
He said it permitted or encouraged unlawful conduct because it did not sufficiently remove the risk that immigration officers might make a mistake when they assess the age of an asylum seeker who claims to be a child.
Recommended
Parachuting his friend Lord Hermer into Parliament has given Starmer a headache
Read more
In the absence of other evidence of age available, one criterion set out in the guidance (known as criterion C) is: “Their physical appearance/demeanour very strongly suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age and no other credible evidence exists to the contrary.”
Lord Hermer’s client sought to quash this part of the guidance on the grounds of unlawfulness. The relevant ground in the appeal to the Supreme Court was that, when the guidance is followed, it does not remove the risk that an asylum seeker may be assessed to be an adult on account of looking older, when they are, in fact, a child, and be treated unlawfully as a result.
The claim was dismissed in the Upper Tribunal, but it was allowed to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The secretary of state appealed further to the Supreme Court. On July 30, 2021, the Supreme Court found that Home Office guidance for assessing the age of asylum seekers was lawful, and Lord Hermer lost the case.
“without fear or favour”.
He expressed concern about “attacks on lawyers for doing particular cases”, warning these could undermine “faith in the legal system”.
He pointed out that this system “works best when you have advocates who are able to take on cases without fear or favour and represent clients irrespective of their own views as to what their client did, whether it was morally right or morally wrong”.
Play The Telegraph’s brilliant range of Puzzles - and feel brighter every day. Train your brain and boost your mood with PlusWord, the Mini Crossword, the fearsome Killer Sudoku and even the classic Cryptic Crossword.
Post a Comment
0Comments