Many people will recall the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian national granted a visa to stay in this country for 4 years up to 2002, but who disappeared from Britain some time before his visa expired and turned up in Pakistan (see The case of Binyam Mohamed).  He then got in trouble with the authorities there and ended up in the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, presumably because he was seen as a terrorist threat to the US and/or Pakistani security.

For reasons which have never been made clear the late Labour government, under pressure doubtless from an Obama government pledged to close Guantanamo prison, accepted Mohamed back into this country as an act of mercy, an act promptly repaid by Mohamed’s immediately suing Britain (that is you and me) for alleged complicity in his alleged torture at the hands of the Pakistani authorities.  To compound the insult to the British people, Mohamed has been granted legal aid to sue us.

Now it emerges that in conformity with its policy of slavish propitiation of people who injure or insult us, the Home Office has granted Mohamed “indefinite leave to remain in the UK” a status which will lead to citizenship if Mohamed, not us, desires it, and which in any case gives him immediate access to all 79 non-contributory benefits.

That British passport which used to be so prized by the native British people, is now dished out not just to all and sundry, but even to those who positively dislike our country but who find it a convenient source of travel papers and cash benefits.

Mohamed’s lawyers have made strenuous efforts to ensure that this decision should remain a secret, claiming that “publicising his right to remain in Britain would amount to inhumane and degrading treatment” under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  This ludicrous argument, which demonstrates the threat posed to our open society by the Human Rights Act and the industry it has spawned, was dismissed in the High Court thanks to the sound common sense of Mr Justice Cooke who also awarded costs against Mohamed.

We are still in the dark, however, about the grounds on which the Home Office decision was based, given that we now have a government who claim to have capped immigration.  In an attempt to lift the veil of government secrecy about this case, one of our readers has made an application to the Home Office under the Freedom of Information Act in the following terms:

“Dear Sirs,

The above individual has been granted leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.  It is not known when this leave was granted since the individual applied for a legal prohibition on disclosure of the grant, an application which was rejected very recently by the courts.  In accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, I would be grateful for the following information:

– the name of the board, tribunal or committee which decided to grant leave for this individual to remain, and the names of its chairman and members;

– the record or minutes of the proceedings relating to the individual’s application;

– all documents showing the grounds and reasons for the decision;

– the Act or legal instrument and policy guidance (if any) under which the decision was taken;

– the case submitted by the applicant.

Yours sincerely,”

We shall watch carefully to see how the Home Office responds – but don’t hold your breath.

 Email this article