Blunkett loses asylum appeal

The Court of Appeal today rejected a bid by the Home Secretary to overturn a High Court decision threatening his tough new policy of denying food and accommodation to late applicants for asylum.

David Blunkett had challenged Mr Justice Collins's highly controversial conclusion in six test cases that the new rules had resulted in breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In each case, would-be refugees were refused state help while their claims were being processed because they had failed to apply for asylum at the port of entry, or as soon as reasonably practicable.

Government lawyers said the decision had made the deliberately harsh new rules, introduced in January, "unworkable".

Mr Blunkett's QC David Pannick told Lord Phillips, Master of the Rolls, sitting with two other senior judges, that he would not be seeking to appeal further to the House of Lords.

Mr Pannick said the Home Secretary was now changing procedures - "the changes, of course, will be complying with your lordship's judgment".

The new asylum laws were designed to stop people who entered the UK as students or on work visas - months or even years ago - using asylum applications as a device to extend their stay in Britain.

But human rights groups accused the Government of going too far and unfairly subjecting vulnerable people to destitution which could force them into crime and prostitution.

Lord Phillips, sitting with Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Sedley, said: "We dismiss these appeals because Mr Justice Collins was correct to conclude that each of the six decisions under consideration was vitiated as a result of deficiencies in the procedure.

"We were told by the Attorney General that these procedures are being radically overhauled.

"When they have been put in order we can see no reason why (the new regulations) should not operate effectively.

Lord Phillips added that those who had recently arrived by air "will first have to satisfy the Secretary of State's officials that they had good reason not to claim asylum at the port of arrival.

"If they do so they will be likely to receive support.

"If they do not, the Secretary of State will have to consider whether their vulnerability is such that it is necessary to grant them support in order to avoid the infringement of their rights (under the human rights laws)."

Mr Blunkett said in a statement that he was pleased the Appeal Court judges had backed the "key principle" of his legislation which would allow the asylum system to continue operating in the same way.

"I'm very pleased that the Court of Appeal has found in my favour on the crucial points of law," he said.

"This ruling upholds the view, passed by Parliament, that it's entirely reasonable to expect people fleeing from persecution to claim asylum as soon as reasonably practicable."

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "This legal uncertainty confirms our view that the entire asylum system needs to be scrapped and replaced with a quota of genuine refugees.