2006 Afghan hijackers case

The Afghan hijackers case refers to a series of United Kingdom judicial rulings in 2006 in which it was ruled a group of nine Afghan men, who had hijacked an aircraft to escape the Taliban, had the right to remain in the UK. The case provoked widespread political controversy and was questioned by large sections of the media, causing widespread condemnation by many newspapers (most notably "The Sun") [ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4760539.stm Hijacker ruling draws criticism] , BBC News, 11 May 2006] , and the leaders of both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair called the ruling "an abuse of common sense" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5245302.stm Timeline of Afghan hijacker case] , BBC News, 2 August 2006] , while the Conservative Party leader David Cameron pledged to reform British human rights legislation to prevent a recurrence of such situations. [ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4765861.stm Tory pledge on Human Rights Act] , BBC News, 12 May 2006]

Timeline of the case

In February 2000, a group of nine Afghan men led by brothers Ali Safi and Mohammed Safi fleeing the Taliban regime hijacked a Ariana Afghan Airlines flight Boeing 727 aircraft of 180 passengers, forcing the crew to fly to Stansted Airport in Essex, England. They were convicted of hijacking and false imprisonment in 2001, but their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2003.

In 2004, a panel of adjudicators ruled that returning the men to Afghanistan would breach their human rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Home Secretary Charles Clarke granted the men only temporary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. This would have placed restrictions on them, including not being able to work or obtain travel documents and being told where to live. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5232922.stm Reid fights Afghan hijack ruling] , BBC News, 31 July 2006]

In 2006, Mr Justice Sullivan of the High Court, in "S and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department", ruled that it was unlawful under the 1971 Immigration Act to restrict the men's leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and ordered that they be granted "discretionary leave to remain", which entitled them to work in the United Kingdom. [ [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1111.html S & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department] [2006] EWHC 1111 (Admin), 10th May 2006] The Home Secretary, John Reid, challenged the ruling in the Court of Appeal, arguing that the Home Office "should have the power to grant only temporary admission to failed asylum seekers who are only allowed to stay in the UK due to their human rights". The Court dismissed the appeal on 4 August 2006. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5244936.stm Reid loses Afghan hijack ruling] , BBC News, 4 August 2006] [ [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1157.html S and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department] , [2006] EWCA Civ 1157]

Controversy

Both major parties condemned the ruling. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said "these hijackers committed serious crimes which should make them incompatible with refugee status" and argued that the problem was of the Labour government's "own creation" due to their introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998.

References

ee also

*Human Rights Act 1998
*Secretary of State for the Home Department
*Political asylum
*Refugee
*Afghan refugees

External links

* [http://www.conservativefuture.com/issues/issue.cfm?obj_id=129917 The issue discussed on the Conservative Future website]
* [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1157.html Text of the Court of Appeal ruling]