Friday, 14 August 2009

OK, so what would you do?

Feridon Rostami is an Iranian Kurd who smuggled himself into Harwich in a truck in 2005. By 2006 his claims for asylum had failed and he was ordered to be deported. He escaped to Ireland and tried to claim asylum there, but was sent back to the UK. Since then he has mostly been in immigration detention.

The problem is that Rostami won't co-operate in the process to send him home. This is a criminal offence, and he was duly convicted and sentenced to eight months. Then he went straight back into immigration detention. He can't be let out with a tag, because he would remove it. He can't be let out with orders to report daily to a police station, because he would abscond. He still refuses to cooperate in some essential part of the process to deport him.

His latest appeal was heard by Mr Justice Foskett on 4th August. I'm not going to slate his Lordship's judgement; read the case yourself, look at the legal arguments and just think what you'd do in the circumstances.

The end result is that Rostami has now spent 34 months in detention and there is no realistic prospect of deporting him in the near future without his cooperation, and that without that prospect his continued detention cannot be justified. Judge Foskett therefore reluctantly ordered his release, but has given the Home Office 28 days, until the begining of September, to come up with something before his order takes effect.

The deportation process is clearly flawed, and this may be beyond our control - it seems the Iranian authorities will not take him back without the document that refuses to co-operate in creating.

Just what does a highly civilised, humane but grossly abused nation such as ours do in such circumstances?

9 comments:

wildgoose said...

Send him to Afghanistan - the Afghans are hardly in a position to object, and the language spoken is essentially the same.

And if he makes any more trouble there I'm sure he could be accidentally shot...

JuliaM said...

There's a little place in Cuba, I hear...

talwin said...

"Just what does a highly civilised, humane but grossly abused nation such as ours do in such circumstances?"

Highly civilised?

Illegal wars causing the deaths of thousands of innocents? Baby Peter? Feral kids kicking harmless chaps to death? An idle, indolent sub-culture immersed in a grotesque benefits system? Liberty under threat? A sleazy, corrupt and lying political class? Etc., etc.

Be that as it may; not sure what we do as per your question. Start to look after number one before the whole edifice collapses?

Anonymous said...

In order to set out a solution ,you would first have to understand why this man is so determined to stay in the UK.
Without going through the screeds of legal argument you direct us to and interpreting it for the unPC , we do not know his motivation. When we do , we remove same and his reasons to stay , go so to speak.
If it is illegal to remove his reasons to move here then accept him here and start to work on changing what is a bad law for the people of Britain.
D McGregor

electro-kevin said...

"Just what does a highly civilised, humane but grossly abused nation such as ours do in such circumstances ?"

First throw off the delusions that we are highly civilised and humane.

To many outsiders, and many insiders for that matter, we are neither.

(How would Canada or Australia deal with it ?)

electro-kevin said...

The problem is why do so many asylum seekers cross so many borders to get to Britain.

Welfare.

Anonymous said...

There has to be a limit. If he won't cooperate in his return, put him in solitary confinement and feed him one meal a day of bread, water and nutritional supplements until such times as he ceases his criminality.

Bill Quango MP said...

He doesn't need to cooperate.
If cooperation is not received then asylum rights are waived and he is taken to wherever else will have him.
If no one will, then its Somalia.

William Gruff said...

A 'highly civilised, humane but grossly abused nation such as ours' realises that things cannot go on as they have over the past sixty years and is prepared to accept that pretensions to civility do not necessarily preclude savagery.

Your man is clearly very determined but I'd be happy to wager a year's income that he would be more than happy to co-operate after a year in remote stateless solitary on a very simple diet.

Our society is neither civilised nor humane; it is decadent and in decline and invasive surgery is all that can possibly save it.

Hand wringing won't get the job done.