§ Mr. Chris Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were (a) interviewed and (b) detained during a raid by police to apprehend immigrants then in breach of immigration control on 13 September at 134 Downham road, London N.1.; for how long those detained were held; what were the nationalities of those interviewed and those detained; how many people were deported under section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 as a result of the raid; how many prosecutions were brought as a result; at what level the raid was authorised; whether the appropriate police community liaison officer was notified and consulted about the raid beforehand; whether the raid constituted a major joint operation as referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Battersea 581W (Mr. Dubs) on 30 March, Official Report, columns 305–6; and if he will list and indicate the total number of all other similar raids involving more than two police officers in the London borough of Islington designed to apprehend immigrants in breach of immigration regulations during the last two years.
§ Mr. BrittanOn 13 December 1983 a visit to 134 Downham road was authorised by a chief immigration officer to apprehend the subject of a detention order made in connection with a notice of intention to deport who was reliably and correctly believed to be living at that address. The visit was not a "major joint operation", and the police community liaison officer was not consulted. In trying to find the person concerned it was necessary, because the house was in multi-occupation, to interview other people there. At that stage it became clear that others present were in breach of the immigration laws.
Ten people, all Turkish nationals, were interviewed, of whom one was not detained.
One person, who was suspected of having overstayed, was detained for five hours. She was released once information had been obtained from central Home Office records about her immigration status.
Eight people were found to be in breach of the immigration laws, and dealt with as follows.
Two people who had overstayed their leave were charged with offences under section 24(1) of the Immigration Act 1971. They were detained for two days before appearing in court, when they were granted bail. They subsequently left the country before their trial.
One person who had overstayed his leave was charged under section 24(1). He was detained for two days before appearing in court when he was convicted and fined £10 with no recommendation for deportation.
One person who had overstayed his leave and was charged with an offence under section 24(1) had the charge withdrawn when it was decided to initiate deportation action under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act. This action was also subsequently discontinued. He was detained for 25 days before being granted bail by an adjudicator.
One person who was found to be the subject of an existing order was detained for 25 days before being granted bail on application to an adjudicator.
One person who was charged and convicted on two counts under section 26(1) of the Immigration Act was detained for two days before appearing before the court. He was then remanded on bail until his trial, when he was convicted, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and recommended for deportation. At the end of his sentence he was detained awaiting deportation until his release on 17 April. He was detained for a total period of 118 days, including the period of imprisonment.
Two people were found to be the subject of existing deportation orders and detained for 125 days until their release.
None was deported. Six made applications for asylum, which, after careful consideration, were found to satisfy the criteria laid down in the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees. They were accordingly granted asylum with refugee status and given permission to remain for 12 months in the first instance. The outstanding deportation orders have been revoked.
582WRecords of operational visits by the police and immigration service in connection with suspected breaches of the immigration laws are not maintained on a borough basis.