Asylum lorry fines are illegal

David Blunkett's asylum

policy was dealt a severe

blow yesterday when

senior judges said fines on

lorry drivers who bring in

stowaways are illegal.

The Appeal Court ruling

removes a key component of

the Home Secretary's

crackdown on illegal immigration.

Ironically, the two-year-old

policy was ruled unlawful under

Labour's controversial Human

Rights Act.

The decision leaves the Home

Office facing a £4million bill to

refund fined lorry drivers.

Last week, Mr Blunkett's

strategy to tackle illegal

immigration was undermined when

rioting inmates set fire to a

new flagship asylum detention

centre near Bedford.

The Home Secretary planned

to lock up more failed asylum

seekers at Yarl's Wood centre

before throwing them out of the

country.

The lorry fines system was

designed to stop illegal

immigrants entering Britain in the

first place.

The number of people arriving

at Dover and other ports soared

from 500 in 1992 to 16,500 in

1999.

Under rules introduced in

April 2001, any truck driver

found to be carrying illegal

immigrants was fined £2,000 for

every person on board.

The hauliers' only defence was

to prove they had taken every

reasonable precaution to

prevent stowaways.

More than 50 drivers and

haulage firms challenged the

system by saying it contravened

the Human Rights Act - which

makes a European charter of

rights part of English law for

the first time.

The Home Office imposed the

fines and also gave rulings on

any appeals by truckers.

The system effectively made

the Home Secretary judge, jury

and executioner, breaching the

right to a fair trial.

Appeal court judge Lord

Justice Jonathan Parker said it

was 'absurd' that lorry drivers

who reported stowaways faced

huge fines for doing so.

He added: 'That seems to me

not only absurd, but wholly

unfair. Moreover, the unfairness

derives from the scheme itself,

not from the way it is

administered.'

The judges confirmed a

High Court decision in

December which found the Home

Office guilty of 'legislative

overkill'.

Lord Justice Simon Brown

said the court had to decide not

only whether the scheme was

harsh, but also whether it was

plainly unfair.

He concluded: 'However

compelling the social goal, there are

limits to how far the individual's

interest can legitimately be

sacrificed to achieve it.'

He said many drivers faced

bankruptcy because their

lorries were impounded if they

appealed.

The judges rejected a claim by

the lorry drivers that the

system breached European

Union laws guaranteeing the

free movement of goods. Mr

Blunkett is likely to ask the Law

Lords to make a decisive ruling

in the case.

But after the High Court and

Appeal Court both found

against him, experts say his

chances of success are slim.

If he loses, he will have to

amend the law governing the

fines, probably by bringing in an

independent tribunal to review

appeals.

The Home Secretary put a

brave face on his defeat, saying

he could still impose fines while

awaiting the Law Lords¿

decision. But he admitted he could

not collect any cash.

The Home Office fears drivers

will now reduce security on

their trucks.

Mr Blunkett could also have

to pay back more than £

4million in fines already collected.

Seven thousand fines have

been imposed - totalling more

than £14million - but £10million

has not been paid because the

drivers have appealed.

The fines have been credited

with improving security at

Calais ferry port, where most

stowaways board British-bound

trucks.

That has led to a huge fall in

the number of illegal

immigrants arriving at Dover - but

an increase in the those

targeting Channel Tunnel trains.

Similar fines were imposed on

Eurotunnel, but Mr Blunkett

recently announced they were

being scrapped.

He insisted this was because

security had been improved

on the trains. But critics say

the High Court ruling against

the lorry fines made the train

penalties untenable too.