The Home Office has been issuing removal directions for a charter flight to Iraq, apparently codenamed Operation Rangat, which it states could leave any time. Unlike previous charter flight operations where the HO has confirmed that the flight is going to the KRG controlled part of northern Iraq, the removal directions simply state 'Iraq' and the HO has refused to disclose the route/destination of removal as well as the date of removal. The refusal to disclose the date of removal or even to respond to communications from representatives has led to emergency out of hours applications in which a duty judge and a duty judge's clerk on different occasions have had to telephone the HO in order to get for us an indication that the flight is not leaving imminently.

 

In R (Madhat) v SSHD (CO/11966/2009), Mr Madhat (represented by Refugee and Migrant Justice instructing Mark Henderson) sought an order requiring the HO to disclose the route/ destination of removal. He relied on the Court of Appeal's judgment in GH v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 1182. In that case, the Court of Appeal accepted the HO's submission that an appeal to the AIT under s.82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was not capable of testing human rights and safety issues concerning the removal directions in circumstances where they had not been set and it was uncertain what removal directions would be set. The Court of Appeal held, again agreeing with the HO's position, that the correct stage to make human rights challenges to the route and destination of removal was when the removal directions were served which would disclose the route/destination. Having persuaded the Court of Appeal so to hold, Mr Madhat argued that it was unlawful then to refuse to serve the removal directions or otherwise to disclose the route/destination of removal.

 

Today, Davis J ordered as follows: "I direct that the SSHD forthwith ... provide details of the route and destination of proposed removal of the applicant." The SSHD has not yet complied.

 

Representatives with clients who have removal directions to 'Iraq' may wish to refer to this order for disclosure. It is unconditional: unless or until the HO succeed in having it set aside, it is unlawful not to disclose the destination.  Davis J also stayed removal pending the determination of the judicial review claim and  a number of other injunctions have been granted in relation to claimants who have received removal directions for this charter flight.

 

Mark Henderson

Doughty Street Chambers