This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/02/child-refugee-legal-challenge-dubs-government-scheme-fails
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Legal challenge to cap on Dubs child refugee scheme fails | Legal challenge to cap on Dubs child refugee scheme fails |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Campaigners have lost a high court challenge against the government over the number of unaccompanied child refugees accepted into the UK under the Dubs scheme. | Campaigners have lost a high court challenge against the government over the number of unaccompanied child refugees accepted into the UK under the Dubs scheme. |
| The charity Help Refugees claimed the consultation process by which home secretary, Amber Rudd, calculated that only 480 should be accepted was “fundamentally flawed”. | The charity Help Refugees claimed the consultation process by which home secretary, Amber Rudd, calculated that only 480 should be accepted was “fundamentally flawed”. |
| It had sought court orders to force her to abandon the cap and reopen the consultation process so consideration could be given to allowing more children in. Government lawyers contested the case, arguing that there was no illegality. | It had sought court orders to force her to abandon the cap and reopen the consultation process so consideration could be given to allowing more children in. Government lawyers contested the case, arguing that there was no illegality. |
| In a ruling given in London on Thursday, two judges dismissed an application for judicial review by the charity. | In a ruling given in London on Thursday, two judges dismissed an application for judicial review by the charity. |
| Help Refugees said afterwards that it had lodged an application for permission to appeal against the ruling by Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Ouseley. | Help Refugees said afterwards that it had lodged an application for permission to appeal against the ruling by Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Ouseley. |
| Rosa Curling, from the human rights team at the law firm Leigh Day, which represents Help Refugees, said: “This litigation has already brought about very significant advances – 130 extra places for vulnerable children were added as the direct result of this litigation. | Rosa Curling, from the human rights team at the law firm Leigh Day, which represents Help Refugees, said: “This litigation has already brought about very significant advances – 130 extra places for vulnerable children were added as the direct result of this litigation. |
| “The government was also forced to accept that the children to be transferred under the Dubs amendment were additional to the children the government already had to transfer under EU law. | |
| “Our clients continue to believe that the way in which the Dub amendment has been implemented is seriously defective. We have sought permission to appeal.” | |
| Josie Naughton, founder and chief executive officer of Help Refugees, said: “We are bitterly disappointed by this result but also very proud of what our litigation has already achieved. At the time our litigation was issued, not a single child had been transferred to the UK under the Dubs amendment. | Josie Naughton, founder and chief executive officer of Help Refugees, said: “We are bitterly disappointed by this result but also very proud of what our litigation has already achieved. At the time our litigation was issued, not a single child had been transferred to the UK under the Dubs amendment. |
| “Transfers began under the pressure of this litigation and under the pressure from campaigners and parliamentarians. We’ve unearthed 130 extra places, which the government eventually admitted it had overlooked. These places for children are needed now more than ever. | “Transfers began under the pressure of this litigation and under the pressure from campaigners and parliamentarians. We’ve unearthed 130 extra places, which the government eventually admitted it had overlooked. These places for children are needed now more than ever. |
| “There are young unaccompanied children sleeping rough in Europe completely unprepared for the coming winter. We intend to appeal.” | “There are young unaccompanied children sleeping rough in Europe completely unprepared for the coming winter. We intend to appeal.” |
| The judges announced: “Overall, having considered the criticisms made as to the requirements for a fair consultation we are not persuaded that the claimant’s case is made out.” | |
| During a hearing in June they were told that local authorities were meant – under what is known as the Dubs amendment – to let the Home Office know which areas of the country were ready to take unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. | |
| But the charity claimed there was a government failure to carry out a full UK-wide consultation. | |
| The Dubs amendment to the 2016 Immigration Act, from May last year, required the Home Secretary to make arrangements to relocate “a specified number” of vulnerable refugee children from Europe based on feedback from local authorities. | |
| Lord Dubs, a Labour peer and architect of the Dubs amendment, who came to the UK as a refugee from the Nazis, has urged ministers to reconsult local authorities, saying that many confused by the process have since “expressed a willingness to take more child refugees”. | |
| Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green party, said: “This ruling is bitterly disappointing, but it does not stop the government reconsulting with local authorities. | |
| “We could still take in more child refugees who are at great risk of abuse and trafficking and I urge ministers to do so immediately.” |