Campaigners have highlighted the Windrush scandal as a glaring example of the Home Office’s failures, which has since been widely recognized as the Home Office scandal. The incident came to light in 2018 when British citizens, primarily from the Caribbean, were unjustly detained, deported, or threatened with deportation despite having the legal right to reside in the United Kingdom. This resulted in widespread loss of homes and employment, as well as denial of access to essential services like healthcare and benefits.
Among those affected was Trevor Donald, a Jamaican-born individual who arrived in the UK in 1967 and resided there for 43 years. After visiting Jamaica in 2010, he was denied re-entry upon attempting to return to the UK, marking his status as a Windrush victim. Following the scandal’s exposure in 2018, he was eventually permitted to return to the UK and granted indefinite leave to remain. He became a British citizen in January 2022.
In response to the scandal, an independent review was commissioned, resulting in the publication of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review in 2020 by Solicitor Wendy Williams. However, in January 2023, it was confirmed that Suella Braverman, then Home Secretary, had dropped three of the 30 recommendations initially accepted by the Home Office. These recommendations included the establishment of a migrants’ commissioner, increased powers for the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, and the organization of reconciliation events.
Mr. Donald’s legal claim, supported by the Black Equity Organisation (BEO) and trade union Unison, alleges unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) read with Article 8. Nicola Braganza KC, representing the BEO, argued that the Home Office’s decision reflects “direct discrimination against Mr. Donald and other Windrush and Black and Asian communities.” She highlighted the broken promises made to the Windrush generation, emphasizing that white British citizens would not have been subjected to such treatment.
The Home Office, represented by Edward Brown KC, maintains that the review’s recommendations were not legally binding and that the government was not obligated to implement them. Moreover, the department argues that the policy decisions, both past and present, involve assessments and judgments on essentially political issues.
The hearing, presided over by Mrs Justice Heather Williams, is anticipated to conclude on Wednesday. A written decision is expected to be issued at a later date.
