Blunkett puts brave face on defeat

Blunkett puts brave face on defeat

by Danny Shaw BBC Home Affairs Correspondent

What a difference a few weeks can make.

David Blunkett says he is pleased despite the apparent defeat

In February, after the High Court had declared that his new asylum regulations were illegal, David Blunkett told the BBC he was "fed up" with judges interfering in policies passed by Parliament.

Today, he said he was "very pleased" that the Court of Appeal had found in his favour on "crucial points of law".

But however much Mr Blunkett and his press officers may try to gloss over it, the fact is that the courts have again ruled against the government.

Or, as the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, put it: "The appeal is dismissed."

Key arguments

Lord Phillips, sitting with Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Sedley, said that the system which led to the six asylum seekers who'd brought the original case being refused welfare support was not "fair" or "fairly operated".

In particular the judges criticised the way in which interviews were conducted with asylum claimants:

"The Secretary of State should have regard to the applicants' state of mind on arrival," they said.

But while the legal battle over these six claimants has been lost, the Home Office has indeed won some key arguments.

The Court of Appeal did not agree with the High Court's earlier ruling that the new regulations could lead to a breach of human rights because of a "real risk" that an asylum seeker would end up destitute.

The Appeal judges also made clear that the burden was on the applicant to prove that he or she claimed asylum "as soon as reasonably practicable" after arriving in the UK.

And crucially, the court accepted that the new policy on withholding welfare support could "operate effectively" - as long as fundamental changes, promised by the government, were brought in to change the way the system works.

More challenges

That finding rescues the government's policy and Mr Blunkett has already acknowledged that procedural changes have been made.

Exactly what it means for those who don't claim asylum at an official port of entry is unclear, though it's certain that fewer people will be denied welfare support under the revised regulations than under the rules introduced in January.

The key test will be whether genuine refugees, like the six people whose cases sparked this legal action appeared to be, continue to be turned down for support by the immigration authorities.

Campaigners believe it's only a matter of time before that happens - in which case, prepare for more legal challenges in the courts.