1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Chfcampaign sparks court attle to reclaim 12m fines
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EXCLUSIVE
ill by Dominic Parry BACK The Home Office Is set
to face yet another court battle over its flawed immigration policy—this time over its mean-spirited refusal to refund some 2.2m of the industry's money.
This controversy dates back to its decision last December (CM 19 Dec 2002-1 Jan 2003) not to pursue around 112m of unpaid fines levied under the loathed L2,000-perhead civil penalty schema. This followed the Roth court case which saw the system condemned as violating operator's rights to a fair trial. However, in a move that provoked widespread condemnation, the Home Office elected to hang on to £2m of fines that haulier's had paid.
The government argued that by the simple act of handing over the cash, the hauliers in question had admitted their guilt and therefore should not receive a refund. But, following an incisive CMcarnpaign to have the £2m returned, the Road Haulage Association joined CM in part-funding the initial legal consultation alongside several haulage firms. in addition to the court case, CM is continuing its campaign and will shortly present a petition to Home Secretary David Blunkett.
Research by CM showed that many firms had come under severe pressure from the immigration authorities to pay the fines—with many threatened with the loss of homes or businesses if they did not cooperate. Michael Keats from Keats Transport in Chard, Somerset, was given four hours to find /12,000 before the authorities impounded his truck (CM 9-15 Jan). Additionally many paid up simply to get their trucks back and resume trading.
In a further bizarre twist, operators that had elected to pay in installments found the unpaid balance of their fines was cancelled yet they were still refused refunds on the portion they had paid, causing many of them to ask how they could only be partly guilty.
But now Nottingham law firm Rothera Dowson, acting on behalf of around a dozen UK and overseas hauliers, is taking the government to the European Court of Human Rights in a bid to reclaim some of the operators' money, again arguing that they were not given a fair trial. Solicitor Jane George believes the challenge has an excellent chance of success: "Those that paid the fines must have had their human rights breached, based on the earlier findings, yet they discover themselves in a worse position than those who refused to pay. It is perverse, irrational and unfair."
Of the hauliers involved in the case, half are understood to be British. One of these is Gloucester-based Eric Vick Transport, which paid out 14,000. Boss Eric Vick says he is fighting on a matter of principle: It's not about the money, it's about justice," he says. "Anyone caught initially was practicab forced to pay up. Flow can we treat people on the right hand one way and differently on the ieftP It's just not justice."
If the case is successful, then the court will order the Home Office to pay compensation to the hauliers involved in the case.
Although the court cannot order it to refund any of the £2m, Mike Freeman, the RHA's head of international affairs, believes that a victory for the hauliers can only add to the pressure on the government to refund the money: "If they lose this, then they will have lost the moral argument—we hope the government will review the whole situation."