Refugee benefits are 'inhumane', High Court told

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

Rules denying state benefits to late claimants for asylum were attacked as "inhumane" at the High Court yesterday.

A lawyer challenging the new rules on behalf of five asylum-seekers said the system was contravening human rights legislation by forcing applicants to sleep rough.

Kier Starmer QC said a lack of food and shelter was threatening them with physical and mental deterioration and interfering with their ability to pursue their applications. He told Mr Justice Collins: "It is inhumane to subject someone to that sort of destitution. There is no way they can prosecute their claims."

Mr Starmer was appearing for five of six asylum-seekers bringing test cases against the rules, which came into effect on 8 January.

The challenge came as Ruud Lubbers, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, met Tony Blair, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to discuss the problems associated with asylum-seeking. The High Court test action is being dealt with as a matter of urgency. There are another 150 similar cases in the pipeline, with more coming in every day.

Mr Justice Collins said he would give his judgment on 19 February and indicated that the Court of Appeal was already being prepared to deal with any subsequent appeals.

Under the rules, introduced through the 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, only asylum-seekers who apply at the port of entry can be sure of accommodation and support. Claimants are expected to apply for asylum "as soon as reasonably practicable" if they want to receive benefits. Exceptions can include cases in which applicants are pregnant, have children under 18, or if support is considered necessary to avoid a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Starmer said the asylum claimants in the test cases, who cannot be identified, were "fleeing regimes around the world". He said "J" was fleeing Iran, "F" and "D" were from Angola, "M" was from Rwanda, "B" was fleeing Ethiopia and "Q" was fleeing Iraq.

Mr Starmer, instructed by the Refugee Legal Centre, is asking the High Court to declare that the immigration authorities are interpreting the rules too strictly and in a way that breaches the human rights convention.

Since they were introduced, refugee campaigners have described the rules, designed to help stem the flow of illegal entrants to the UK, as "draconian and appalling". There is no right of appeal if assistance is refused. The only remedy is to seek judicial review.

The test case applicants have all been given food and shelter while they wait for the outcome. Mr Starmer told the court at the start of a two-day hearing: "If you leave someone to sleep on the streets and order that they have no support, that is a breach of their convention rights."

Last week, Mr Blair announced a target to halve the number of asylum-seekers entering Britain by September, to about 50,000 a year.