A lawyer has expressed his outrage at illegal migrants being handed £500,000 in compensation after having their mobile phones seized upon arrival to the UK. Speaking to GB News, Luke Gittos despaired at the “extremely expensive case for the British taxpayer”, arguing that a “gap in the law” has been “exploited”.More than 70 migrants who crossed the Channel have been awarded around half a million pounds in compensation after their phones were seized by UK authorities.Judges in the High Court have ruled the blanket policy in 2020 was unlawful, and determined that confiscating their devices and downloading their personal data breached the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
TRENDING
Stories
Videos
Your Say
Some 32 asylum seekers have already received settlements totalling £210,800, working out at £6,587.50 per person, and 41 cases are still outstanding.Delivering his verdict on the case, Mr Gittos told GB News: “What we’ve seen is the compensation payouts that are being recorded today, but obviously that only touches on the cost to the taxpayer, because obviously the Government has to defend these claims when they are brought. We have to use High Court time, which in itself is extremely expensive. “There was a lot of lawyers involved in this case, they don’t work for free, so this was an extremely expensive case for the British taxpayer.”He explained: “Now, what exactly happened here? Well, in 2022, a group of migrants bought this claim against a blanket policy of the UK Home Office. They argued that the policy of seizing the phones of those who arrive on these small boats was unlawful, principally for two reasons. “Firstly, because it breached the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 8, and secondly, our own data protection laws. So this wasn’t simply a ruling about human rights law, it also factored in the Data Protection Act.”Arguing that the case has been won due to a “gap in the law”, Mr Gittos said: “We do have very strict laws about when and how people can have their phones seized, that does play a legitimate role, I think, for British citizens. “But it’s very clear that when people come into this country on a small boat, they are by inherently connected to organised crime because they’re using organised crime in order to cross that Channel. So there is a clear and legitimate purpose for the need to to take those phones, and it’s clear that this is really a lacuna, a gap in the law that’s been exploited and it’s resulted in this crazy ruling.”Calling for the Labour Government to look at “reforming” the article, he continued: “Now Article 8, which was the principal right that the migrants relied on, that’s now being discussed in terms of reform. There’s lots of people wanting to reform this specific article because they think it’s way too broad, it covers way too many areas of life. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS’Couldn’t make it up!’ GB News guest fumes as illegal migrants given compensation for phone seizuresIllegal migrants handed £6.5k each in compensation for seized phones – paid for by YOUAsylum seeker who raped homeless woman with ‘violence’ complemented by judge for prison conduct”So that discussion has already been happening at very senior levels. Even Keir Starmer, himself a human rights lawyer, accepts that Article 8 needs to be subject to reform, and I think this will turbocharge calls to really have a look at that article and narrow its remit.”Questioning why the ECHR is involved in such a case, host Andrew Pierce asked Mr Gittos: “The fact is, every single one of those young men and women who crossed the Channel – let’s face it, most of them are young men in their early 30s – has broken the law. So what’s it got to do with the European Court of Human Rights? “What’s it got to do with data protection? They’ve broken the law by crossing illegally, therefore, the authorities should be able to confiscate their phones, because that can then assist their investigation into how they broke the law.”The lawyer responded: “The problem is that we have some primary legislation which deals with how and when phones can be seized and accessed. We have the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which was introduced by the new Labour Government and regulates the use of these kind of intrusive powers, these surveillance powers, and that placed quite strict requirements on the border guards as to what they could do and when.”That was coupled with the Data Protection Act, which does create a protection for people from having their data interfered with by the authorities, and then that was supplemented by Article 8. These are all rights that are in play when we’re talking about people’s data and private information.”Suggesting how a different Government to Labour can navigate these UK laws if they are elected into power, Mr Gittos explained: “What you could do is, as well as leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, you could create specific statutory exceptions for particular circumstances. So it’s actually not a difficult problem to solve.”If you could create a piece of law which said, if you arrive on this boat and there is a strong suspicion that you’ve arrived illegally, then your normal data protection rights do not apply, that seems to me to be a very small and minor change that can happen quite quickly and would solve the problem. “And the issue we have here is that Governments just don’t seem to want to grasp this by the nettle. There’s a lot of passing back and forth, a lot of blaming of Europe, when actually a lot of the problems we blame the European Convention on Human Rights for, although that is a problematic international treaty, a lot of the problems we often blame it for are have their roots at home, and this is, at least in part, an example of that.”In a statement, a Home Office spokesman said: “This compensation is to be paid as a result of the previous Government’s policy, which now no longer exists.”We have introduced tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act which allows asylum seekers’ mobile phones to be legally seized when they arrive in the UK.”These game-changing criminal offences will mean organised criminals fuelling illegal migration can be intercepted faster than ever before.”
Our Standards:
The GB News Editorial Charter GB News Read More