"We cannot part with this case without paying tribute to the claimants\' legal advisers who although greatly outnumbered by the Secretary of State\'s legal team have persisted with their requests for disclosure skilfully and with commendable determination." (per Lord Justice Scott-Baker in  R (on the application of Al-Sweady and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 2387 (Admin)).
Lord Justice Scott-Baker
 
 

Public Interest Lawyers believe that Afghan Interpreters must be protected by the UK

Afghan interpreters pay a high price for working with the British armed forces. According to recently released Ministry of Defence figures, 21 have been killed and more than 90 injured in the last five years. Interpreters face the same risks of improvised explosive devices and insurgent ambushes as the troops they translate for but they face an additional and serious threat from the Taleban.  Many have received death threats from the Taleban because of their work with the UK military and fear for their safety and that of their family when the NATO forces leave Afghanistan. Major Jamie Forbes of the Labour Support Unit said:

"I'd say they're absolutely crucial to glue the whole operation together. Effectively there would be no partnership with the ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] or the ANA [Afghan National Army] if they weren't around."

However, Afghan Interpreters are not sufficiently protected by the UK and there are no plans to introduce a scheme to protect their safety through relocation outside of Afghanistan, a scheme which would be similar to the, now-closed, programme for Iraqis who were employed by the UK government for a year or more.  An Afghan Interpreter has commented to the press, “we don't have a secure future. The US military has a policy for interpreters but the British don't. I don't have any insurance, I don't have a medical allowance. If something happens to me what am I supposed to do? How am I supposed to support my family?" It is not just the Interpreters themselves who believe that the UK has a duty to protect them, Sir Menzies Campbell said "we have a debt of honour and it would be shameful if we did not repay it", while Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy called on the Coalition to look at all the options available.

The British government not only owes a moral debt to Afghan interpreters who have put their lives on the line to assist British troops.  It also has clear legal obligations to Afghan interpreters, obligations that it is not honouring.  The European Convention on Human Rights requires it to protect the right to life (article 2) and the right to be free from "torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (article 3) of all Afghan interpreters that it employs. These legal obligations require positive action from the UK government. Afghan Interpreters must be protected inside Afghanistan and their rights must be fully considered and protected when considering their UK Immigration status. Removal from the UK back to Afghanistan cannot take place where there are substantial grounds for believing that Afghan Interpreters face a real risk of mistreatment or attempts on their life.  Such a risk is already evident, but it appears that information available to the MoD is not being effectively communicated to the UK Border Agency in its handling of asylum claims. 

Public Interest Lawyers have a great deal of experience of challenging the actions of UKBA and the Ministry of Defence through judicial review proceedings.  They successfully challenged the handover of Afghan prisoners from UK to Afghan authority in the case of Evans.  In Al-Skeini they established the application of the Human Rights Act in conflict situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.  The current conduct of the UK Government in relation to Afghan interpreters warrants a similar challenge. 

 


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  Appeal in legal challenge to cuts to North Somerset youth services will be heard on 13 June 2013...
  Claimants launch legal challenge to DWP’s emergency retrospective legislation ...
  PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERS: UK’S USE OF DRONES IN AFGHANISTAN “HIGHLY LIKELY” TO BREACH INTERNATIONAL ...
  PIL: Afghans 'unlawfully held' by UK forces at Camp Bastion to be transferred to Afghan authorities...
  Public Interest Lawyers' Response to Ministry of Justice Consultation on proposed reforms to legal a...
  Guardian: Camp Bastion detainees challenge the notion of British justice in Afghanistan...
  AFGHANS 'UNLAWFULLY HELD' BY UK FORCES AT CAMP BASTION...
  HIGH COURT RULES IN HUNDREDS OF IRAQI UNLAWFUL KILLINGS AND TORTURE CASES...
  BBC: Baha Mousa book and Marie Colvin honoured by Orwell Prize ...
  HIGH COURT GRANTS PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW IN AFGHAN KILLINGS CASE...
  Guardian: British soldier under investigation for murder over shooting of young Afghans...
  Guardian: Labour abstention on workfare bill prompts party infighting...
  The Independent: First Al-Sweady witnesses to appear...
  DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling...
  Judicial Review launched against Birmingham City Council over cuts to "Shelforce" - a supported disa...
  The Times: Lawyer of the week – Tessa Gregory...
  BBC: Al-Sweady inquiry opens in UK into deaths of Iraqis...
  Birmingham City Council threatened with Judicial Review proceedings over cuts to 'Shelforce' - a sup...
  Open Democracy: Home Secretary, please call off the attack on kidney patient Roseline Akhalu ...
  Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quas...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down tomorrow, Tuesday 12 February 201...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down on Tuesday 12 February 2013 at 10...