Military base refugees win case

The Home Secretary acted unlawfully in refusing to consider entry to the UK for a group of refugee families on the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus, the Court of Appeal has held.

The six claimants were among 75 individuals who washed ashore on the military base in 1998 after the boat they were travelling in foundered off the Cypriot coast. While the Home Secretary accepted the claimants were refugees within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention, she disputed their right to move to the UK on the basis they had no strong ties to the UK and there were ‘no reasons for treating them exceptionally’. Moreover, she argued, neither the 1951 Convention nor the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights applied to military bases. She said the Home Office had made arrangements with the Republic of Cyprus for the families.

The claimants countered that the 1951 Convention did apply to the military base in Cyprus, therefore the families should be allowed to move to the UK.

The court unanimously held, in R (Bashir & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 397, that the Refugee Convention applies directly to the military base by virtue of the earlier extension of the Refugee Convention to the colony of Cyprus in 1957. It ordered the Home Secretary to urgently reconsider the refusal of entry.

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Justice Irwin said: ‘The secretary of state must take the decision once more but on the basis that the Refugee Convention applies directly and the UK owes direct obligations to the claimants by operation of public international law.

‘In my judgment the outcome of that decision must take into account the history but cannot be determined by this court merely by re-analysing the historic evidence.’

Tessa Gregory, partner at Leigh Day, who acted for the refugees, said: ‘Our clients have been in legal limbo for 18 years living in wholly unacceptable conditions on a British military base. We hope the UK government will not seek to pursue further costly legal proceedings and will face up to its responsibilities.’