Journalist ends hunger strike as UKBA backs down

Article published: Friday, August 19th 2011

Journalist James Fallah-Williams has ended his 19-day hunger strike after the UK Border Agency (UKBA) agreed to resume communications with his legal team and consider his case for asylum.

The news was announced earlier today as supporters staged a lobby outside the government agency’s Liverpool office. The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Manchester branch member had been on hunger strike in protest against the UKBA’s treatment of his asylum claim, including the failure to respond to direct queries put to them by his solicitors and local Leigh MP, shadow education minister Andy Burnham.

Originally from Sierra Leone, Fallah-Williams arrived in the UK in 1998 on a student visa and claimed asylum in 2008 following death threats after he wrote articles critical of politicians in his country of origin. While a decision on his claim for asylum has yet to be made, the acknowledgement represents a breakthrough after previous denials from the UKBA that they had received further submissions on his case.

His case has been dogged by controversy, with his original asylum claim having been refused just weeks after he aided a family in winning a landmark legal decision at the Asylum Court Tribunal Hearing in London while employed as a caseworker at the Manchester Refugee Support Network. The UKBA had also previously apologised to Burnham after the agency provided inaccurate information about the journalist’s case history to the shadow minister.

In a statement, Fallah-Williams said: “As you all know, I have lived in this country for 13 years and I have contributed enormously during this period to the development of the society and community wherever I have lived.

“I asked for a review of my immigration case.  It was specifically because of the UKBA’s abject failure to engage in any legal means to resolve the matter that I was compelled to begin my hunger strike.

“I am now informing you that, with effect from this morning, my hunger strike is over. This is because the UK Border Agency have invited a submission from me which was received at this very building, by the UKBA, at 0830 a week ago today [Friday 12th August].

The UKBA have confirmed receipt of this submission and they are currently considering it.  Moreover, the communication line is now open between my legal representative and the UKBA and due respect is being extended to my MP Andy Burnham in the sense that, as my elected representative, he has rights that he can exercise in relation to his constituents and those rights should be observed at all times in a society that claims to be democratic.”

Commenting on the case, chair of the Manchester Branch of the NUJ Chris Rea said: “James’s friends and colleagues in the Manchester Branch of the National Union of Journalists are delighted that he feels able to come off the hunger strike he has maintained for 19 days. This drastic action was taken by James because the UKBA refused to engage with his case, his solicitor or his MP. The fact that the UKBA has now agreed to look at the case is the direct result of James’ hunger strike.

“James’s campaign, however, is far from over, and the Manchester Branch of the NUJ will continue to stand with him as he seeks a righteous conclusion. We are dismayed that James was driven to go on hunger strike due to the serial mishandling of his case and trust that going forward the UKBA will treat him with the fairness and dignity to which he is entitled.”

Richard Goulding

Tweet

More: Migration and asylum, News

Comments

1. It’s about time we made the UKBA’s law more clear and unambiguous to avoid cases like this.

   The UKBA is a public sector organisation. It is in its employees own interests to become engaged in lengthy appeals and reconsiderations. That’s an easy way to create more work for themselves and so ensure their jobs are more secure.

   Scrapping the Human Rights Act would probably be a step in the right direction, and one which would prove electorally popular for any party which proposed it.

   Comment by simon on August 21, 2011 at 8:56 pm

2. Simon you are clearly quite ignorant in matters of law. The UK is a signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights, and as such is obliged to respect and implement the rulings of the Strasbourg court. While the Human Rights Act 1998 formally introduced this to domestic law in an ordered and coherent form, devising at the same time an innovative constitutional procedure that allows courts to comment on the compatability of new statutes with the provisions of the ECHR without impinging on Parliamentary sovereignty, the UK was nevertheless already bound by the ECHR. Repealing the HRA would necessitate the creation of another legal instrument – most likely in the form of legislation as nothing else would be of real binding effect on the courts – that ensures the application and respect of the provisions of the ECHR in the UK. Although an entirely different institution to the EU, a prerequisite of membership of the latter is having signed and ratified the ECHR. Even Russia and Turkey are parties to it. Withdrawal would entail significant political implications internationally. So you know see that your facile suggestion that the UK ‘scrap’ the HRA would in fact create a minefield of legal and political problems: namely, either reformulating the HRA but with essentially the same function, or else taking the rash step of leaving the EU simply to allow arbitrary or incompetent decisions in the immigration system to go unchallenged.

   Comment by Withingtonian on August 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm

3. Withingtonian,

   you are obviously ignorant of my knowledge of the law as you don’t know me, so your comment that I’m ‘clearly quite ignorant in matters of law’ is absurd and ridiculous.

   In my post I suggested that we made UKBA law more clear so they don’t have the power to reconsider cases like this one.

   This is perfectly possible. We could simply enact new laws for the UKBA to adhere to, and if the European Convention of Human Rights presented any problem in this area we could simply eneact a law to repeal the UK’s need to abide by it.

   Withingtonian, you need to remember that laws can be changed at any time. There is no such thing as a law ‘enshrined’ for all time, though many on the intolerant left seem to think there is if they find the status quo agreeable.

   Comment by simon on August 23, 2011 at 2:37 pm

4. Simon – go back and read my response calmly. Nowhere is there any mention of enshrinement. the diceyian of notion parliamentary supremacy notwithstanding, the UK is politically bound by the ECHR as I explained above. repeal of the HRA would not, as you incorrectly state, remove the obligation of the iUK to respect it. Indeed, strasbourg case law was being enforced in the UK courts decades before new labour ‘brought rights home’. Or weren’t you aware of that? Before wading in with the textbook daily mail reaction of ‘scrap the human rights act’ you might want to address the political, social and legal realities of what that wud mean in ur own head. No longer is Britain is a sovereign isle floating above Europe where the ‘Queen in Parliament’ can enact any statute in absolutely unfettered fashion.

   Comment by withingtonian on August 23, 2011 at 4:24 pm

5. Ruthless logic will not work on Simon, his faculties have clearly deserted him.

   I was impressed though how he managed to lever the ‘selfish greed of public sector workers’ into this particular article – a feat of some magnitude

   Comment by Waste on August 24, 2011 at 3:22 pm

The comments are closed.