Man who was part of Windrush generation ‘disgraced’ – judges

Man who was part of Windrush generation ‘disgraced’ – judges

A

man who traveled to Britain in 1960 when three as part of the gust of wind generation was “treated disgracefully” for not being able to “get formal documentation of his immigration status,” senior judges said.

Three appeals court judges said in a ruling on the latest stage of a citizenship dispute on Wednesday that Hubert Howard, who was born in Jamaica and died in 2019 at the age of 62 in Britain, having experienced “serious problems” from being subjected to a “hostile environment”.

Gentleman Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing said Mr Howard’s family had been compensated under the Windrush Compensation Scheme for “the way he was treated”.

“He came to this country, at the age of three, with his mother in November 1960,” said Lord Justice Underhill.

“He lived here until his death on November 12, 2019.

“During that period he was … entitled to reside in the UK, most recently on the grounds that he had an indefinite residence permit; and he did not need individual permission to do so.

“So he belonged to the so-called ‘Windrush generation’.”

Jamaican immigrants welcomed by RAF Colonial Office officials after ex-troop ship HMT ‘Empire Windrush’ landed them in Tilbury (Archive/PA) / PA archive

The judge added: “Like many others in the Windrush generation, Mr. Howard had serious difficulties being subjected to the so-called ‘hostile environment’ as a result of not being able to obtain formal documentation of his immigration status.”

He said “very seriously,” in 2012, Mr Howard had lost a long-term job as a janitor after an inspection by immigration officials.

Howard had applied for naturalization as a British citizen in 2018.

Home office ministers had rejected his application on the grounds that Mr Howard failed to meet the legal “goodness requirement”.

In 2021, a Supreme Court judge said Mr Howard’s refusal to naturalize was illegal.

But appeal judges on Wednesday overturned that ruling, after a hearing by the Court of Appeal in London, and upheld a challenge from the Home Office.

Lord Justice Underhill said the appeal decision “in no way undermined recognition that Mr Howard was treated disgracefully”.

Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice Laing agreed.