Comment : Illegal Immigration and the Tariff Scheme
Paul Coates poses some questions about when, if ever, illegal immigrants should be entitled to compensation under the 2001 Tariff Scheme
Twenty-one Chinese immigrants drowned in Morecambe Bay while working illegally as cockle pickers. Others suffocated in a sealed container while attempting to gain entry to the United Kingdom. Charges of manslaughter may be brought as a result of these tragic occurrences. Not surprisingly these events have received considerable media attention and they are high profile examples of the potential tension between compensation for death or injury and illegal immigration.
In what circumstances, if any, should illegal immigrants be eligible for compensation under the 2001 Tariff Scheme? Criminal injury is defined as injury sustained in Great Britain and directly attributable to a crime of violence, of which the claimant is an innocent victim. Compensation may be reduced or withheld when the decision maker considers that the conduct of the claimant before, during or after the incident makes it inappropriate that a full award or any award is made; or, when the claimant's character as shown by criminal convictions or other evidence makes it similarly inappropriate.
All illegal entrants will have committed a criminal offence even if for reasons of practicality or public policy they are not prosecuted. The London bombings are a deadly reminder of the importance of border security. Clandestine entry or entry by deception may perhaps be viewed more seriously than hitherto.
The 2001 scheme does not restrict eligibility to UK citizens or lawful visitors. When the scheme was drafted immigration and asylum did not have the high profile and media attention which they receive today. It may well be that those who drafted the Scheme did not even consider the situation for those potential claimants who were in the UK illegally when injury was sustained. This is no doubt reflected in the fact that neither the Scheme nor the Guidance Notes refer to any such considerations.
So what about the asylum seeker who is beaten up in the street? Does it make any difference if he is attacked because of the perception that he is an asylum seeker or if his immigration status is of no relevance to the incident?
The proposition that a person who has been granted Refugee Status by the time his application for compensation falls to be considered should be treated as if he were a UK citizen, is likely to be uncontroversial. Other potential scenarios are less obvious. Perhaps eligibility should be coextensive with the right to work, to access the NHS and other state benefits. Clearly the formulation of guidelines is a matter which needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Paul Coates is a full time Immigration Judge and a legal Panel Member of CICAP.
(October 2005)
What do you think?
If you would like to share your thoughts on this article with us, and ultimately with others who are interested, please email us at enquiries¶@¶cot.gsi.gov.uk