Asylum Seekers Sue Government over “Unsuitable” RAF Base Accommodation

More than 200 asylum seekers who are being housed at a former RAF base in Essex are taking legal action against the Government, claiming that the accommodation is unsuitable and unlawful. The High Court heard on Tuesday that the asylum seekers, who arrived in the UK illegally, are challenging the Home Office’s decision to place them at RAF Wethersfield, near Braintree

According to Essexlive, The Government announced last year that it would use the former airbase, which is now a Ministry of Defence site, to accommodate up to 1,700 male migrants aged between 18 and 65. The Government said that the move was part of its strategy to deter illegal migration and to deal with the shortage of accommodation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

However, the asylum seekers, who are mainly from Albania, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Eritrea, claim that the conditions at the site are inadequate and inappropriate for their needs. They allege that they have been subjected to poor hygiene, overcrowding, lack of privacy, isolation, and harassment. They also claim that they have not been given proper access to legal advice, medical care, education, or work opportunities.

The asylum seekers are represented by lawyers from the Public Interest Law Centre, who argue that the Home Office has breached its statutory duties and human rights obligations by housing them at RAF Wethersfield. They are seeking a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision, and are asking the court to order the Government to relocate them to more suitable accommodation. They are also seeking damages for the harm and distress they have suffered.

The lawyers said that the asylum seekers were living in a “never-ending limbo”, and that their situation was having a detrimental impact on their physical and mental health. They said that some of the asylum seekers had been victims of human trafficking, torture, and sexual abuse, and that they were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. They said that some of them had attempted suicide or self-harm, and that others had gone on hunger strike to protest against their treatment.

The Home Office is contesting the claims, and is defending its decision to use RAF Wethersfield as a temporary accommodation site. The Home Office argues that the site is safe and secure, and that it provides the asylum seekers with adequate facilities and services. The Home Office also argues that the site is necessary to cope with the unprecedented demand for asylum accommodation, and that it is part of its wider policy to deter illegal migration and to remove those who have no right to be in the UK.

The Home Office says that it has followed its own policies and procedures, and that it has taken into account the welfare and wellbeing of the asylum seekers. The Home Office also says that it has consulted with the local authorities, the police, and the health services, and that it has responded to any complaints or issues raised by the asylum seekers or their representatives. The Home Office says that it is committed to providing humane and dignified treatment to all asylum seekers, and that it respects their rights and dignity¹².

The hearing, which is expected to last for two days, is being presided over by Mr Justice McGowan. The judge will hear evidence and arguments from both sides, and will deliver his judgment at a later date.