The Home Office had a secret general policy of confiscating phones belonging to asylum seekers who had arrived in the UK via secret routes, such as small boats. The telephone data were then exported. Three asylum seekers – known only as HM, KA and MH – one of whom has been identified as a potential victim of trafficking, have submitted a judicial review of Ms Patel’s policy to the Supreme Court. All three had their phones confiscated between April and September 2020, without being able to tell their families that they had arrived in the UK or to have enough time to write down important phone numbers. Officials had threatened them with criminal sanctions unless they provided the codes to unlock their phones, plaintiffs’s lawyers said. The data stored on their phones was later exported. Their lawyers claim that thousands of others who arrived in the UK in small boats had their phones confiscated and hundreds more cloned. The three plaintiffs’ phones were returned only months after legal proceedings began, lawyers said. Asylum seekers could not contact their families to say they were safe and did not have time to write down their significant numbers, they added. But the court ruled the policy was illegal, in violation of human rights and data protection laws. Privacy International, a leading human rights NGO, intervened. She said Ms. Patel had denied the phone policy, but acknowledged the phone seizures and data cloning still held by the Home Office. It was also revealed that Ms Patel had been referred to the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) for breach of data protection law. But he decided not to inform the hundreds of asylum seekers affected by the breach. The interior minister argued that immigration officials had the right – under section 48 of the 2016 Immigration Act – to investigate small boat arrivals, pick up their phones and extract data from devices. But the Supreme Court ruled that the law could not be used to conduct personal investigations and, therefore, the plaintiffs’ investigations and subsequent seizures of their telephones were therefore illegal. The policy also violated their right to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the court ruled. The request of the Ministry of Interior for the unlock codes of the phones under the threat of criminal sanctions was also considered illegal and violates human rights. Gold Jennings’s Clare Jennings – a law firm representing plaintiff HM – said: . “Today’s decision provided much-needed clarification as to the extent of the immigration officers’ powers of investigation and seizure, and undoubtedly confirmed that the Home Secretary’s policy of seizing all mobile phones from small boats was illegal.” Deighton Pierce Glynn’s Daniel Carey – the lawyers who represented KH and MA – said: “All of this had a real impact on very vulnerable people who lost contact with their families and could not get their asylum documents Phones have been on the shelf for many months, many of which can now not be returned. “I am pleased that the current crisis justifies our customers and all those affected. “This is another example of how the hostile environment of the Ministry of the Interior ignores basic human rights and dignity.” Lucie Audibert of Privacy International said: “It is clear that the Home Office considered that asylum seekers arriving on the UK coast did not have the same privacy rights as other people – it shamelessly granted itself illegal powers to arrest and detain systematically searches their phones, even when they were not suspected of any crime. “This is in line with the efforts of this government (and many others) to criminalize immigration and to rob migrants of their basic human rights. “We welcome today’s decision and hope that the plaintiffs will receive adequate redress for these unacceptable violations of their rights.” A spokesman for the Interior Ministry said: “We are considering the decision and it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”
