Ministers were accused of creating policy based on “cruel and unnecessary political posturing despite necessity and effectiveness” after it emerged that the plan to flag this cohort to prevent them escaping was rarely put into action. Guidance published by the Home Office on June 15, the day after the first planned flight to remove asylum seekers in east Africa was scrapped, highlighted that re-piloting would put some of those traveling to Britain through “unnecessary and dangerous routes”. with electronic tags. It states that if flagging conditions are violated, asylum seekers may be considered for detention and removal, subject to administrative arrest or criminal prosecution. Boris Johnson later hit back at criticism of the plan, saying it was introduced to “make sure asylum seekers can’t just disappear into the rest of the country”. But lawyers say most asylum seekers detained before the June 14 flight have now been released without tags after bail judges decided – or the Home Office admitted – that it would not be appropriate to subject them to those conditions. Pierre Makhlouf, legal director at Bail for Immigration Detainees, which helps detainees apply for bail, said the charity has so far represented 16 cases of people subject to the Rwandan scheme, which have been imposed on all and in all but two of which were released untagged. He added that the “vast majority” of judges decided not to impose electronic monitoring. He compared the failed measure to Rwanda’s removal policy itself, saying: “The Home Office continues to trumpet harsh and harsh policies, but the reasons they fail to deliver is because of the very harshness and cruelty involved. “This is the inevitable consequence of creating policy based on harsh and unnecessary political posturing rather than necessity and effectiveness. “The government’s approach to electronic surveillance is unlawful if it fails to take into account the unique circumstances of each case.” Home Office guidance published last month states that while evidence of medical issues, torture and modern slavery will be taken into account when deciding whether to flag an asylum seeker, these factors “will not [themselves] to prohibit the imposition of such a condition”. “In many cases, even when there is some evidence in favor of eliminating electronic monitoring, it may still be appropriate to maintain electronic monitoring because of other relevant factors,” it says. Graeme McGregor, campaigns director at Detention Action, said: “We have supported many people who have been flagged by the Home Office and told us how degrading this practice is. “Even if rarely used, the Home Office’s policy of ankle tapings threatened by Rwandan politics is clearly unenforceable and an affront to their rights and dignity.” It comes after the courts granted an application to postpone a judicial review of the legality of Rwanda’s policy. She was scheduled to go to trial on July 18, but it was postponed until September. A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government will not be deterred as we plan for the next flight to Rwanda. “The tagging policy is currently being piloted to test its effectiveness, but migrants are still being tagged, so it is wrong to suggest that it is not working. Suitability assessments are made prior to any decision to implement electronic monitoring.”
