LONDON, AUGUST 27, 2004
PTI
A Sikh asylum seeker from Punjab, who was deported to India in defiance
of a court ruling, was flown back to Britain before he could pass through
the immigration at the Delhi airport on Thursday and the Home Office
here has ordered an inquiry into the whole episode.
"We are investigating the circumstances of removal of Jorowar
Singh Dhillon, and any recommendation resulting from the investigation
will be implemented by the immigration services to ensure a non-recurrence
of such an incident," a spokesman of the Home Office said.
34-year-old Dhillon, who made a 13,600-km journey to Delhi and back
yesterday after the Home Office deported him, is now in the UK, the
spokesman said.
The investigation is a sequel to a demand from a High Court judge
seeking explanations from the government over the deportation and why
its legal team failed to attend the court to explain their actions.
Justice Davis demanded that counsel and a Treasury solicitor come
to court swiftly. "I require them to be here," he said yesterday.
The judge made clear his anger with the immigration authorities
and the Treasury solicitor over their handling of the case. He said
there had been a "prima facie failure" by the Home Office
to comply with an order that he had issued against the removal of Dhillon
to Delhi.
The return trip began despite the emergency court orders issued
by telephone on Wednesday night aimed at stopping Dhillon's removal.
Dhillon even made a last-minute attempt to remain in UK by telephoning
his lawyer from the Virgin Airways flight minutes before take-off, shortly
at 2200 hrs on Wednesday.
The final travel and legal bill to the taxpayer for the failed removal
of Dhillon, who first came to Britain in 1996, is estimated to be at
least 20,000 pounds.
Dhillon was detained when he reported to immigration officials in
West London as he had done regularly since being refused asylum in 1996.
Efforts to expel him triggered increasingly desperate legal moves involving
injunctions granted by Justice Davis over the telephone from his home
in Richmond, southwest London.
The action began at about 1600 hrs when lawyers for Dhillon telephoned
immigration staff and said that, because he had applied under human
rights legislation to stay, he could not be removed. They said that
the immigration service refused to accept this as a reason for delaying
removal, even though the Home Office had not responded to his application,
made in November 2003.
At 1915 hrs Amanda Jones, counsel for Dhillon, sought and was given
an injunction from the judge saying that he should not be put on the
aircraft. He had listened to her argument for 15 minutes over the telephone.
Kenny Bhogal, solicitor for Dhillon, told immigration authorities
about the court order over the phone and by fax.
Within minutes of take-off, Jones telephoned the judge again seeking
a further injunction.
At 2300 hrs Justice Davis issued a second injunction that Dhillon
should not pass through immigration control at Delhi but should be returned
immediately to Britain.
Bhogal said: "Just before the plane took off, I got a phone
call from Dhillon. He was panicking but I was able to talk to a stewardess
and immigration security official and tell them about the (first) injunction.
The security officer refused to do anything and refused to give his
name."
The second injunction also ordered government lawyers to be at the
High Court to explain how Dhillon had been deported despite a court
order forbidding removal.
Dhillon arrived in Britain on July 10, 1996, and claimed asylum
on July 15. His claim was rejected on September 23, 1996, and his appeal
refused on September 4, 1998.
He claimed that he would be persecuted if returned to India because
he had been involved in the transportation of arms for Sikh separatists.
But when his claim was dismissed, it was said that he feared "prosecution
not persecution."
The Home Office issued no instructions for his removal and in November
2002 he sought to remain on human rights grounds. He claimed to be allowed
to stay on the ground of right to a family life because he had been
in England for seven years.