Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Refugees to be returned to London

Robert Verkaik
Friday 16 August 2002 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A High Court judge has given the Home Office 14 days to return an asylum-seeker and his young son to their accommodation in London. They had been sent more than 250 miles to live in the North-east.

Mr Justice Richards said the decision to uproot the father and his "disturbed" son was perverse. The High Court was told that the father, who has Aids and bears mental and physical scars from being tortured in his African homeland, and his son, arrived in Britain in July last year and are awaiting a decision on their asylum application.

They had been living in Haringey for a year when the National Asylum Support Service told them they would have to go to Middlesbrough. They were given three days to pack and were moved to what their counsel, Simon Cox, called a sink estate. They were later transferred to Stockton-on-Tees, a decision the judge said was made "as a result of a violent incident, apparently involving racial harassment".

Mr Justice Richards said the original move was unlawful because it "didn't really touch upon" the needs of the child, who was making progress at a London school.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in