Letter to House of Lords: Rape Victims and the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Bill

To: Members of the House of Lords
24 June 2002

Dear Member of the House of Lords,

We write to draw your attention to the devastating impact the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Bill would have on women and children fleeing rape and other violence. Estimates suggest that 50% of women seeking asylum in the UK are rape survivors. You may be aware that during the debate on the 1999 Immigration & Asylum Bill (now Act), we made submissions on its likely impact (based on our intensive work with women in this situation), and put forward a number of amendments, some of which were proposed during the Lords’ debate.

Since the introduction of that Act, our worst fears have been confirmed. In the past two years we have seen a substantial increase in women struggling to survive and support their families on a pittance (either with vouchers or cash worth only 70% of Income Support, or in accommodation where food only is provided); living in sub-standard, dirty, dangerous and totally inappropriate mixed-sex accommodation; forcibly dispersed away from counselling, legal and other vital support services; isolated in areas where they know no-one who speaks their language or where they are the only Black people or immigrant people. We have also seen increasing numbers of women held in detention, including those with young children. The combined effect of these measures has been to greatly increase the suffering of women already traumatised by the rape and other violence from which they have fled (including gang-rape by soldiers and rape over many months in detention), who are unable to access even the most basic health and other support services vital to their recovery. We attach a brief history of some of the cases we have been involved in so you can see for yourself how rape survivors are being treated.

The Bill’s proposals to introduce "Reception", "Accommodation" and "Removal" Centres - imprisonment by another name - will add considerably to this hardship. Traumatised women who are victims of the most violent crimes will be incarcerated like criminals, contravening the most basic human rights and UNHCR guidelines, denied independent and accountable legal advice, and essential medical and other expert support and resources.

Attempts to speed up the decision-making process already deny victims of rape and other torture the consideration and protection to which they are entitled. It is widely recognised (including by The Immigration Appellate Authority’s Asylum Gender Guidelines) that rape victims find it difficult to speak about what happened, especially when interviewed by hostile male immigration officers who are themselves under pressure to find fault with as many claims as possible. It is essential therefore that the legal process allow sufficient time and a sympathetic environment to enable victims to speak about what has happened to them, in order for all available evidence to be put before the relevant authorities. Denying access to appeals and judicial review will make women even more vulnerable to injustice and put their lives in danger.

We hope you will share our concern that women seeking asylum from rape are being denied access to the protection and support which all rape survivors are entitled to receive. Legislating for a double standard of treatment contravenes all principles of justice, and has the effect of demeaning the crime of rape for asylum seekers and for all women. In the interests of protecting all vulnerable women and children, we urge you to oppose this Bill.

We would be happy to discuss this with you. Please do contact us if you require further information.

Yours sincerely,

Cristel Amiss, Black Women’s Rape Action Project
Sian Evans, Asylum from Rape Initiative, Women Against Rape

We are currently helping Ms Z, who arrived in the UK at the end of 2000 after being beaten and raped by soldiers in Uganda, who also beat her son unconscious in front of her, and then took him away. She has never heard from him since. She fled leaving her four other children behind. The Home Office rejected her claim, saying that the rape by soldiers was nothing more than "a very serious criminal act of sexual gratification on the part of the soldiers concerned". The Adjudicator and the Immigration Appeals Tribunal have so far upheld this shocking ruling, which amounts to a serious violation of the protections women have fought hard to establish. The ruling is now being appealed to the House of Lords. It is crucial that legal procedures are available to asylum seekers who are rape survivors so they can challenge such sexist dismissal of the seriousness of rape. All rape survivors will suffer from decisions which reinforce the sexism of the immigration and legal systems, especially if they are allowed to stand without challenge because the woman involved is an asylum seeker who has been denied the scrutiny of the full legal process.

Ms Q, a student activist, was targeted by soldiers for her and her family's long-standing opposition to the Kenyan government. She suffered rape and violence in detention, and became pregnant. She was forced to leave her child behind when she escaped to the UK. The Home Office rejected her claim citing lack of evidence. Only as a result of Black Women Rape Action Project’s detailed report, which highlighted how Ms Q was repeatedly raped, beaten and tortured, was she granted refugee status - ending six years of uncertainty. The proposed Bill would not allow enough time for organisations such as BWRAP to intervene on behalf of rape survivors. Ms Q faced additional hardship as a result of legal negligence: her solicitor didn't tell her she'd been granted refugee status so her vouchers were stopped and she was left with nothing to feed her children. Some weeks elapsed before her benefits were re-instated.

Ms S fled from Uganda where she was detained for over a month because she was politically active in opposition to the government in the run-up to the 2001 election. While in detention she was repeatedly raped by prison guards. When she finally managed to escape she found her house had been vandalized and she was unable to contact her husband and son. On arrival in the UK Ms S was very distressed at being held in Oakington detention centre, especially as she had so recently escaped from detention in Uganda. She was unable to speak about being raped in the interview with officials. Ms S’s claim was refused by the Home Office, which claimed that the rape by soldiers "arose from failures of discipline and supervision rather than any concerted policy on the part of the Ugandan authorities". This reasoning was rejected by the Adjudicator, who doubted that "rape can ever be regarded as simply an act to achieve sexual gratification" and awarded Ms S full refugee status. Had Ms S been fast- tracked or certified, she would have been deported back to Uganda and her life would have been in danger.

Ms X's family experienced many years of racism and abuse in Poland because they were Roma. As a teenager Ms X was gang-raped and injured in a racist attack; she became pregnant and had a daughter, who was racially harassed once she started school. The Home Office disputed Ms X's credibility, claiming that Roma people in Poland have state protection. The Adjudicator awarded full refugee status, which Ms X's lawyer described as a "first" for some years. The government’s proposed list of safe countries flies in the face of the Adjudicator’s decision.

Active on human rights in Turkey, Ms P was detained twice by police. She was brutally gang-raped at gunpoint as well as repeatedly beaten and interrogated. Ms P was unable to speak to anyone about it, and under cross-examination at her appeal hearing became visibly distressed. The Adjudicator forced Ms P to continue. His ruling was sent to her home so her husband learnt about the rape - as a result he assaulted her and then left her. Only after Women Against Rape protested about the authorities' outrageous disregard for Ms P's safety, was she granted Exceptional Leave to Remain without further cross-examination.

initiatives & campaigns