The Attorney General Lord Hermer fought the Home Office in the courts to try to help migrants stay in the U.K. by asking judges to rule that a key age assessment test was unlawful. The Telegraph has the story.
In his work as a human rights barrister, Lord Hermer represented an Eritrean man claiming to be an unaccompanied child migrant.
In a high-profile legal challenge, he argued that immigration officers’ age assessment guidance for asylum seekers was unlawful as there was a risk they could be wrong.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument.
Lord Hermer is facing mounting pressure over his work as a barrister and accusations of conflicts of interest with his current role.
He has refused to declare whether or not he recused himself from advising Ministers on issues relating to his former clients, including Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Fein leader, and Afghan families accusing special forces of murder.
It comes after it emerged that Mr. Adams is in line for taxpayer-funded compensation because of Sir Keir Starmer’s human rights plans. …
Under the Immigration Act 2014, adults who claim asylum in the U.K. are treated differently from unaccompanied children. It has led to cases where adult asylum seekers falsely claim to be children to receive more lenient treatment and find an easier route to staying in Britain.
Lord Hermer acted for an Eritrean man who entered the U.K. on his own and in 2014 claimed asylum as an unaccompanied 16-year-old.
He was promptly arrested as an illegal migrant. Immigration officers deemed him to be an adult and he was treated as such at the outset.
British immigration staff thought he looked to be in his mid-20s and Italian authorities later reported that the man had told them he was 26.
Lord Hermer contested Home Office guidance on how age should be assessed.
He said it permitted or encouraged unlawful conduct because it did not sufficiently remove the risk that immigration officers might make a mistake when they assess the age of an asylum seeker who claims to be a child.
In the absence of other evidence of age available, one criterion set out in the guidance (known as criterion C) is: “Their physical appearance/demeanour very strongly suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age and no other credible evidence exists to the contrary.”
Lord Hermer’s client sought to quash this part of the guidance on the grounds of unlawfulness.
The Lefty lawyers are in charge now, and don’t we know it.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.