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’.”
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 affairs 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.
A letter from the Home Office explained how Mr Howard’s application had been rejected for failing to meet a “good character requirement” and had been “convicted of a number of offences” and given a 12-month suspended jail term for assault.
The appellate judges said all but one of the violations were “minor.”
They said the assault conviction came in 2018, when Mr. Howard, who was seriously ill, became angry with the doctor’s receptionist, tried to take her paperwork and “grabbed her finger as he did so.” .
Mr Howard had brought proceedings to challenge the denial of his application in April 2019, arguing that it was not in line with promises made by then Home Secretary Amber Rudd in an April 2018 statement from the House of Commons had done on the treatment of members of the Windrush generation.
Attorneys representing the Department of the Interior argued that the Supreme Court judge who first considered Mr Howard’s challenge, Mr Justice Fasthad come to the conclusion – that a Home Secretary had no rational right to maintain the good character guidance for members of the Windrush generation – which was wrong in law
The appellate judges, who said Howard was represented by his daughter after his death, ruled in their favor.
They said the decision to deny had been reviewed by the Home Office in October 2019 — and that Mr Howard’s application had been granted “on an exceptional basis”.
The appeal judges said Mr Howard, who had suffered from leukemia for several years, had died less than a month later.
They said the ministers accepted that neither the eventual granting of citizenship to Mr Howard, nor his death, made the process related to the original decision academic.