THE Home Office would appear to have won the latest stage in a long-running freedom of information (FOI) battle with The National over the number of asylum seekers removed from the UK because of “human error”.
It has been a year since we asked the department under FOI legislation how many asylum seekers had been removed between February 2018 and February last year using the classification.
We have since approached them several times, offering to modify our FOI request, which they refused on the grounds that it would cost too much.
However, our emails went unanswered, as did similar communications from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The ICO had to chase up the Home Office twice and now the commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has backed them – despite their refusing to explain what was meant by their term “human error”.
READ MORE: Home Office lied to The National over asylum seeker case, lawyer says
Our FOI request followed the case of a 29-year-old lesbian asylum seeker from Namibia – Isabella Katjiparatijivi – who had been locked up in the detention centre at Dungavel (below) and booked on a flight back to her home country, where she feared persecution because of her sexuality.
The Home Office had denied that removal instructions had been issued – despite the fact that The National had seen them.
They eventually said the bid to remove her was a result of “human error”, which prompted us to ask how many others had been similarly threatened, or removed.
However, the Home Office said a manual search of 3500 records would have to be carried out and, at three minutes per search, the cost would be more than the limit of £600 per FOI request for central government departments.
The ICO decision letter said: “The Home Office also said it had invited UKVI [UK Visas and Immigration] to consider whether a sampling exercise would assist but they did not take this up.
READ MORE: Asylum seeker overcomes key hurdle in fight to stay in Scotland
“However ... a manual search of individual records would be required as there was no shortcut or software solution.
“The Home Office said that its estimate of three minutes per file was a conservative one based on its experience of searching individual case records for information in similar contexts.
“On this basis it would be not be practical. For that reason, it said a sampling exercise would be ‘otiose’.”
On several occasions we told the ICO and the Home Office that in this digital world, there had to be an automated solution. Our own inquiries revealed that writing a program to conduct a search for “human error” could cost as little as £150 and take a few hours to write and test.
The ICO said: “However, before obtaining an estimate he said he would need the Home Office to explain its ‘human error’ classification ... The commissioner contacted the Home Office on November 18, December 16, 2019, and January 9 and 27, 2020 to request clarification of its ‘human error’ classification, but at the date of this Decision Notice no response has been received.”
READ MORE: Namibian asylum seeker to leave Dungavel as Home Office backs down
“Human error” was not a term dreamt up by The National – it was the Home Office’s reason for lying about the existence of removal directions for Katjiparatijivi, and possibly many others.
The ICO also drew the Home Office’s attention to the time taken to respond to our FOI: “The Commissioner would like to take this opportunity to remind the Home Office of the Section 45 Code of Practice in relation to the timely handling of internal review requests.”
Katjiparatijivi’s lawyer, Usman Aslam, said last night: “It’s harrowing to know that the Secretary of State at that time lied about there being no removal directions. One would think that it is in the public interest to know what went wrong, as this ‘human error’ could have resulted in an asylum seeker being sent to persecution.”
The National is now considering the option of appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel