We were threatened by Judiciary members and some judges in High Court and the Court of Appeal as we brought to light the injustice caused to families and vulnerable children.
Justice Rabinder Singh QC who preciously worked as a Panel A counsel for the Secretary of State for home Department and Treasury Solicitors threatened us with an Extended Civil Restraint order in April 2012. It is still in question whether his actions are compatible with the European Convention of human Rights. Justice Cooke did the same followed by Lord Justice Goldring, Justice Mitting and Lord Justice Laws. STANLEY BURNTON and Justice MacDuff imposed restraint orders on us with threatening letters.
We then wrote to the European Commission asking whether imposing restraint orders on Asylum Seekers is compatible with EU Law:
2 April 2014
Dear Sir,
I would like to apologise for the delay in writing this letter as indicated in my previous email. We were encountering several difficulties recently with the intrusion in our private and family lives by the State. We were also trying to protect our children the best we can.
From your letter of pre-closure, we understand that the violations of Convention Rights should be submitted to the European Court and subsequently, you also advised that we can seek help from UNHCR. In this regard, we have communicated with the UNHCR based in UK through the email address you provided; nevertheless, we have not received any communication from them yet.
We have applied to the ECHR on various occasions indicating clearly how our rights were breached and how the children involved are being given inhuman and degrading treatment and violation of convention rights here in the UK. We understand that application to the ECHR can take for a long time to be examined but in our cases, decisions are provided very quickly. Decisions are apparently made by the UK Lawyers [who have worked in UK domestic authorities] based in the ECHR. We understand that this is in itself a conflict of interest as the case is communicated to the relevant parties in the UK before any examination of the case. Following instructions received from the UK, the UK Lawyers made their decisions on our cases to declare them inadmissible with the support of Judge Hirvela (who declared all our cases inadmissible).
Recently, we received a decision from the ECHR for our case reference number (36767/13). The decision was made by Judge Hirvela herself and the letter was sent to us by the UK Lawyer Pamela McCormick. The date included in the refusal letter was wrong and we therefore faxed the ECHR for a correction of the date. The letter indicated that the date we made the application was June 2013 while we clearly made the application in August 2013. We provided all the necessary evidences to show that the application dated August 2013. Subsequently, 2 days later, we received a threatening and intimidating letter from another UK Lawyer based in the ECHR. That letter has been attached for your consideration and the contents of which are disputed in our response which we have also attached.
The above experience which we had with the ECHR shows that there was conflict of interest by the UK Lawyers who advised the judge. Similarly, in the United Kingdom our asylum claim has not been examined by the National courts as guaranteed under Geneva Convention 1951 and EU Council Directives.
We understand that the European Commission has no competence to intervene in the assessment of individual asylum applications or resettlements. However, as you clearly indicated, the EU commission can intervene in cases where a member state fails to implement fully or correctly its obligations pursuant to EU law. You also acknowledged that our email did not specify which obligations the UK did not comply with.
We would like to explain this in detail:
- The United Kingdom always welcomes asylum seekers and is well-known for protecting people who are at risk of persecution or torture. However, the situation is very different when we become aware of the truth behind the process of asylum in the UK. Here we are not referring to our case in particular, but to all those cases where the right under Article 6 ECHR has been deprived.
- The scenario is as follows:
- A person seeks asylum in the UK and undergoes all the relevant procedures required such as screening interview, substantial interview and other reporting in compliance with the Immigration rules.
- His asylum claim is then refused with right of appeal, which then proceeds to the First-Tier Tribunal. It should be noted that the Judges in this tribunal are part of the Home Office.
- After refusal of the appeal, the cases are also refused by the Upper Tribunal without a hearing. Subsequently, appeal to the Court of Appeal is deprived.
- After various attempts to seek a remedy, the asylum seeker is then imposed with Civil Restraint orders which deprive him of seeking further justice. He is then forced to pay fees to make any application to the court, threat of imprisonment, deprived of legal aids and also deprived of justice. He is also deprived of being heard.
- The above shows clearly that imposing restrictions such as Civil Restraint orders (either Extended or General) will deprive the asylum seekers from seeking remedy or seeking protection from the risk on return. This proves that the UK fails to be in compliance with the EU asylum acquis and international obligations.
- The UK follows a strategy of multi-agency institutional racism and corruption. All the authorities work together and share information to victimise particular individuals who raise issues or are activists. After sharing information, they plan and find methods to inflict harm and victimise. One method of victimisation can be destroying court bundles without affording a hearing or examining the asylum case. (We have attached a court order which proves that the asylum case cannot be examined due the civil restraint orders).
- With the assistance of children services and the home Office, the judiciary attempts to split children who are born here from their asylum seeking parents. They also attempt to get custody orders. For instance, they make false statements under oath to the court to make false accusations against parents. Later they impose civil restraint orders when the issues are raised in the court.
EU Member States have a shared responsibility to welcome asylum seekers in a dignified manner, ensuring they are treated fairly and that their case is examined to uniform standards so that, no matter where an applicant applies, the outcome will be similar. The UK has not complied with their obligations as an EU state as imposing Civil Restraint Orders on asylum seekers do prevent them from acquiring fair justice and they are in turn threatened to be imprisoned if the Civil Restraint orders are breached. The UK Authorities uses their own defending past and present counsels to sit as Deputy Judges, Judges or Lord Justices. These judges make such decisions to deprive the asylum applicant to have his case heard. If any attempt to exercise our convention rights is made, we will face two years’ imprisonment (this was told to us through a letter we receive from a judge). For instance, a judge named Mr Robert Jay was paid over 200,000 pounds by the treasury solicitors to defend the Secretary of State’s cases. At the same time, he sits as a judge to make decisions on the Secretary of State’s cases. This is clearly a conflict of interest which is a violation of Article 13 – Abuse of power.
Another example is, if the asylum seeker seeks any injunction or any remedy from the court, he is required to pay the fee (despite being entitled to fee exemptions as he does not have any form of income). The asylum seeker then is faced with imprisonment as he has applied to the court which they claim is in breach of the Civil Restraint orders. The domestic court fails to balance proportionately the situation of the asylum seeker, which is whether he has a family with children or private life in the UK.
When we went to seek a remedy from the court, the members of judiciary sold the case file to Journalists and later claimed that the file is lost. Later a defamatory article was published in The Sun Newspaper. This act was carried out by the court despite knowing that the cases are involved with Human Rights issues. Subsequently, to prevent us from seeking further remedies or justice, civil restraint orders were imposed on us to successfully evict us from our property and to discourage us top pursue further. We believe that these issues prove that the UK has failed in its obligations to respect an asylum seeker\’s convention rights and that of his family. It also shows a failure in its obligations to allow the asylum seeker to seek remedy and to have his application examined under Article 6 ECHR.
The EU asylum acquis only applies from the moment an individual has arrived at the border. Article 3 (1) of the Asylum Procedures Directive (2005/85/EC), which defines the scope of the directive’s application, applies to all claims made in the territory of EU Member States, including at the border or in transit zones. For those claims, Article 6 lays down details on access to the asylum procedure. In particular, Article 6 (2) and (5) require states to ensure that individuals are able to access the procedures effectively in practice. As explained above, the Civil restrain orders prevent the asylum seeker access to the asylum procedures effectively. Therefore, the person is in more danger and at risk of being given inhuman and degrading treatment in the UK itself.
Under EU law, Article 4 of the Qualification Directive sets out detailed rules for assessing facts and circumstances in applications for international protection. For example, there must be an individualised assessment; when a person has suffered past persecution, this may be a strong indicator of future risk on return. Eligibility officers need to consider any explanation that constitutes a ‘genuine effort’ to substantiate a claim.
Under EU law, when determining eligibility for refugee or subsidiary protection, it is necessary to consider whether in the country of proposed return the applicant would be protected from the harm feared. Article 7 of the Qualification Directive provides that “[p]rotection against persecution or serious harm can only be provided by […] the State or […] parties or organisations, including international organisations, controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State provided they are willing and able to offer protection […]” which is “effective and of a non-temporary nature”. Reasonable steps to prevent persecution are required, which include operating an effective legal system for detection, prosecution and punishment. The applicant must have access to such protection systems. We did not have access to such protection and the asylum application was not given necessary assessments as civil restraint orders were imposed on us.
Under EU law, return procedures have to be implemented while taking into account the best interests of the child, family life, the state of health of the person concerned and the principle of non-refoulement (Article 5 of the Return Directive).
The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration (Article 17 (6); see also Chapter 9). The examination of an asylum claim must always be taken individually, objectively and impartially using up-to-date information (Articles 2 and 8 of the Asylum Procedures Directive and Article 4 of the Qualification Directive).
Individuals must have access to a practical and effective remedy against a refusal of asylum, a residence permit or for any other complaint alleging a breach of their human rights. In this context, both EU law and the ECHR recognise that procedural safeguards need to be complied with in order for individual cases to be examined effectively and speedily. To such end, detailed procedural requirements have been developed both under EU law and by the ECtHR.
Under EU law, Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides a “right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial”. The first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter is based on Article 13 of the ECHR, which ensures the right to an “effective remedy before a national authority”.
Under the ECHR, the Court has held that there was a need for independent and rigorous scrutiny of every asylum claim. Where this was not the case, the Court has found breaches of Article 13 of the ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 3.
Asylum applicants have the right to appeal against decisions of the authorities not to grant benefits (Article 21 of the Reception Conditions Directive (2003/9/EC)). In addition, national law must set down procedures relating to access to legal assistance and representation.
Access to legal assistance is a cornerstone of access to justice. Without access to justice, the rights of individuals cannot be effectively protected.188 Legal support is particularly important in asylum and return proceedings where language barriers may make it difficult for the persons concerned to understand the often complex or rapidly implemented procedures. We have been deprived of legal assistance due to the civil restraint orders (http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/civil-restraint-orders).
Under EU law, Article 15 (1) of the Asylum Procedures Directive entitles applicants to consult with a legal adviser on matters relating to their application. In the case of a negative decision by the administration, EU Member States shall ensure that free legal assistance and/or representation be granted to applicants in order to lodge an appeal. Member States may require that certain conditions be fulfilled, such as monetary matters or time limits. The Asylum Procedures Directive also allows Member States to provide legal assistance only to those appeals that are likely to succeed.
Under EU law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines the right to marry and to found a family (Article 9) and the right to respect for family life (Article 7) and also protects the rights of the child (Article 24), particularly the right to maintain contact with both parents (Article 24 (3)).
We humbly thank you for your assistance. Please accept our most sincere apologies for any disturbance caused but we have taken the step forward to bring to light the failure of the UK in its obligations pursuant to EU Law despite the risks involved.
Yours sincerely,
Mr and Mrs Ismail
_______________________________________________
Some more injustices caused by RCJ:
· RE: ORDER – THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ISMAIL v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT – c4/2013/2553
14:10
To: ‘afham ismail’
Pimm, Beverley (Civil Appeals Office)
| From: | Pimm, Beverley (Civil Appeals Office) (Beverley.Pimm@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk) |
| Sent: | 02 April 2014 14:10:15 |
| To: | ‘afham ismail’ (afham@hotmail.co.uk) |
Dear Mrs Ismail I refer to your e-mail below. In accordance with Practice Direction PD 52C.27(5) any bundles lodged with the court after 1 October 2012 will not be returned to the parties but will be destroyed in the confidential waste system at the conclusion of the proceedings and without further notification. Since your bundles were lodged after that date, I am afraid that your bundles cannot be returned. Regards Beverley Pimm Civil Appeals Office Royal Courts of Justice —–Original Message—– From: afham ismail [mailto:afham@hotmail.co.uk] Sent: 01 April 2014 16:00 To: Pimm, Beverley (Civil Appeals Office) Cc: Civil Appeals – Registry; Civil Appeals – Associates Subject: RE: ORDER – THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ISMAIL v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT – c4/2013/2553 Dear Sirs Thank you for your email and the attached order. Due to the urgency of this matter which involves minor children, this case needs to proceed to the European Court and other parliamentary and European/Geneva inquiries. In this circumstance, could you kindly return all the bundles in relation to this case. I will be thankful if the bundles are returned before the end of this week. Regards Mrs Ismail — Original Message — From: “Pimm, Beverley (Civil Appeals Office)” <Beverley.Pimm@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk> Sent: 1 April 2014 15:44 To: “‘afham@hotmail.co.uk'” <afham@hotmail.co.uk> Cc: “‘rebecca.hinton@tsol.gsi.gov.uk'” <rebecca.hinton@tsol.gsi.gov.uk> Subject: ORDER – THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ISMAIL v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT – c4/2013/2553 Please see attached Order made by the Rt. Hon Sir Stanley Burnton. Regards
| From: | afham ismail (afham@hotmail.co.uk) |
| Sent: | 02 April 2014 14:33:50 |
| To: | Pimm, Beverley (Civil Appeals Office) (beverley.pimm@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk); civilappeals.associates@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk (civilappeals.associates@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk) |
Dear Madam, Unfortunately your claim that the bundles belong to the court lacks substantial evidences. Merely referring to the PD 52C does not substantiate your point and is not a statutory guideline which directs you to destroy personal evidences or files.. We understand that certain documents do belong to court but the bundles provided to you were paid by us to make copies and to print despite our vulnerable situations. Explicitly, they are not for the court. Unless or otherwise, if you really need to carry on with this discussion, we are happy to make a complaint about this and we may further request Law commission to verify the legitimacy of your claims. Logically, our documents do not belong to the court and as no hearing was afforded or neither an examination of the case which has rejected based on ECRO, the procedure is to return back my documents if the court cannot do its duties properly. If you attempt to destroy any files, it will amount to a criminal offence as this case has violated Mrs Ismail’s identity (identity fraud). In the context of HRA, the court is a public body and should respect these rights for which it has an obligation to. Please kindly provide my documents which is my belongings or, it is requested to pay us the costs of copying. Refusal to provide my documents will interfere with Article 34 of my aboslute right of my application to the ECHR. Regards Mr and Mrs Ismail
________________________________
Parents Against Injustice UK 