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
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
Border patrol
Page 28
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Despite the technology available to border control staff, hauliers are still being fined if stowaways are discovered on their trucks after immigration officials have made their checks. CM finds out why.
Words: Chris Tindall I Images: Paul Shinton DRIVERS AND HAULIERS seeking to avoid fines after unwittingly carrying stowaways into the country are being warned not to rely on CO2 and infrared checks to prove their innocence.
The fallibility of these controls used by immigration officials has led to a huge amount of pressure being placed again on HGV drivers to prove they've done all they can to stop illegal immigrants from entering their vehicles.
A simple checklist for drivers to tick when they carry out their own searches has become almost the only piece of evidence that stands in the way of thousands of pounds in fines.
The situation has prompted one transport lawyer to describe the Immigration and Asylum Act as an -appalling piece of legislation", which allows port officials to point the finger of blame at innocent hauliers, while sidestepping their own involvement in verifying a vehicle's status.
This was summed up in the case of the Coventry haulage operator John English, who spent almost 12 months trying to prove his innocence after one of his drivers was found to be carrying three stowaways.
Driver Jonathan Muggleton says he checked his trailer three times between picking up a load in the Nord-Pas de Calais region of France and Calais port. His vehicle was also checked by: • The port's immigration control, with an infra-red scanner and mirrors to scour the underside of the lorry.
• UK immigration control, with a high-tech CO2 meter.
These checks unearthed nothing suspicious. In fact, Muggleton passed through UK passport control and French customs and was sitting in the ferry lanes waiting to board when a further random CO2 check carried out by port officials and UK immigration revealed a high CO2 reading.
However, rather than detain the illegal stowaways and interrogate them. they were released, leaving Muggleton to he detained for six hours.
Muggleton was eventually allowed to go, but the Home Office demanded English pay almost £2,500 in tines.
The Home Office's concern centred on the apparent absence of an "effective system" to check for illegal immigrants, despite Muggleton's and various border officials' searches.
In a letter to English's MP Tony Baldry. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Meg Hillier says: "The system operated by John English... failed to comply with the Code of Practice on several counts." These included no evidence of the security checklists in the cab, or any evidence that the company monitored the compliance of drivers with the instructions given. No mention was made of the negative CO, or infrared scanner readings.
English says: "In fact, my drivers are provided with checklists. But the checks don't make any sense. Whoever wrote them has no idea what they are saying. For example. the 'FIR cord was never designed as a security device, and should not be considered as one."
Eventually, the Home Office "exceptionally cancelled" the fine, but only on the grounds of English's financial circumstances.
The Road Haulage Association's (RHA) head of international affairs. Peter Cullum, says: "You are guilty until proven innocent with the civil penalties procedures. The Home Office is always saying 'we're here to help'. On the road, it doesn't always work like that." He adds: "The Home Office will not accept CO, checks in place of a checklist, CO, doesn't mean much to them. Similar to all checks, they can be compromised.
"A CO, check is done by a third party 'but the Home Office] wants to focus all of its work on one driver, so when it is talking to him, it can establish proof of innocence.
"And what's more, officials won't stamp documents when asked: they won't be part of an audit trail."
Tim CuIpin, transport lawyer for Aaron and Partners, says it's unfair to expect the haulage industry to be responsible for policing UK borders. He adds: "There's so little guilt involved in these cases. We are dealing with well-organised criminal gangs and very dangerous people.
"The trouble with the Immigration and Ports Authority is that it is a very powerful enforcement agency Like Revenue and Customs, it can be tough."
A UK Border Agency spokeswoman says more than one million lorries were searched for illegal immigrants last year, and it stopped 18.000 people from crossing the channel illegally.
She adds: "The French authorities carry out checks of vehicles before they enter the UK Control Zone. We cannot insist that French authorities issue an acknowledgment that a certain vehicle has been checked, since it would be of no benefit to the company or driver. Third-party checks are a useful addition to an effective system, which is operated to prevent the carriage of clandestine entrants, but they are not a defence against the imposition of a penalty.
-In the event that any clandestine entrants are detected, consideration will be given to whether or not the company and driver operated an effective system for preventing the carriage of clandestines." •