Immigration court’s lack of understanding of role led to social worker’s vilification
A social worker has spoken out against Home Office appeal lawyers criticising him in the media.
Laurence Chester is an independent social worker specialising in immigration cases.
He was condemned in Daily Mail and radio LBC coverage for a court report he wrote which a judge used in his decision when considering the best interest of the defendant’s children. The judge’s decision was to allow a convicted paedophile to remain in the UK.
Laurence wrote in his report that if the father of two were deported, this would cause the children emotional harm and not be in their best interest.
The man, of Indian origin, had served 14 months for distributing child sex abuse images in 2021 and was on the sex offenders register.
When the Home Office tried to deport him, he challenged them and won.
Lawyers representing the man, known only as 'HS', invoked the right to a 'private and family life' under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Home Office appealed, and appeal judges in the upper immigration and asylum tribunal raised concerns about Laurence's report, which maintained deportation would be “too harsh” on HS's children.
The upper tribunal judges claim Laurence had not seen family court documents detailing contact restrictions imposed by social workers because of HS's offending history.
They had the case referred back to the lower court.
But Laurence Chester said: “It’s frustrating that the immigration courts do not seem to understand the role of social workers in this environment.
“My reports are solely based on two things: do the children involved have a relationship with their parent? And what is in their best interests in terms of that relationship?
“So, is it in their best interests that a parent stays in this country? I am guided by a set of expert guidelines.
“These outline what to include and what not to include, and I also get a letter of instruction from the solicitor involved in the case with very specific instructions on what to add.
“What the judges in this case did not seem to understand is that those instructions do not include assessments that belong in the realm of the family court.”
Laurence is concerned by the lack of understanding about the parameters of his specific role.
He says the appeal judges should have called him back to court to explain his report.
“I wish they had asked me to come to court and give an account rather than their comments end up in the media.
“To have this view expressed without my response is professionally undermining and shows they perhaps don’t understand the role of social workers.
“This whole matter reemphasises what I believe about immigration law, where the paramountcy principle of the Children Act does not apply.
“It’s the only area of British law where this is the case – if someone has been convicted for longer than 12 months, it makes them subject to deportation proceedings.
“And unless a solicitor asks me to undertake an assessment under the Welfare Checklist of the Children Act 1989 [which lists everything a court must consider before reaching a verdict], nobody else will do it.
“The Home Office itself has a duty under Section 55 of the Immigration and Asylum Act to consider the impact on children, but they seldom do so in a Children Act compliant way.”
Speaking of the personal impact of the coverage, he added: “I’ve received offensive emails, and this article questions my professionalism.
"This has put my whole family under stress, especially given the current hostility there is amongst the public in regard to this issue.”
His advice to other social workers is: “Join BASW, especially if you are an independent social worker like me. Being able to pick up the phone has been incredibly reassuring.
“I’m proud of the work I do, it’s at the frontline of safeguarding children’s interests.
“The reality is that children love their parents regardless of what they have done.
“It’s not for me to decide whether to deport someone or not – my role is to give children a voice.”