CAMPAIGNS

This was our first case in which we supported and campaigned on behalf of a battered woman who had killed her husband. Kiranjit Ahluwalia, an Asian woman, set fire to her husband Deepak in May 1989 after suffering his brutality for 10 years. She was charged with murder and imprisoned for life. Her tariff was 12 years. It was at the request of her probation officer that we initially got involved. At the time, she had been advised by the legal team who represented her at trial that there were no grounds for appeal. Initially we provided ancillary support - helping to transfer the custody of her two children from her mother-in-law to her sister.

We felt strongly that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. We sought the assistance of a lawyer, Rohit Sanghvi, who without the benefit of legal aid, agreed to support us through the arduous process of assessing whether there were any grounds for appeal. We embarked on a lengthy exercise of getting a detailed statement from her which we hoped would provide the fresh evidence on the basis of which we could lodge an appeal. Rohit Sanghvi also felt that the trial judge may have misdirected the jury on a section of the law. We were given leave to appeal in September 1991 on the basis of the misdirection ground. At the appeal in July 1992 which was presided over by the then Lord Chief Justice, Taylor, the defence argued both provocation and diminished responsibility, both partial defences to murder.

Although the Appeal Court judges rejected provocation, they made a significant concession in the way in which provocation had been traditionally interpreted. They accepted the notion of cumulative provocation, which was an important plank in the defence of most battered women, and also accepted that the period of time which lapsed between an act of provocation and the defendant's response was not necessarily a cooling down period but could be seen as a boiling over period. However, Kiranjit won her appeal on the grounds of diminished responsibility. In the course of our investigation we had discovered a psychiatric report that had been commissioned by her original team but had not been produced at her trial. The report clearly stated that she had suffered from endogenous depression at the material time. A retrial was ordered. However, the Crown commissioned its own psychiatric reports and decided to accept her plea on the basis of diminished responsibility. Kiranjit Ahluwalia was released in September 1992, three years and three months after she had first entered prison to scenes of jubilation from the large number of supporters who had gathered outside the court.

Alongside the legal campaign, we had mobilised public opinion in our own communities and in the wider community through public meetings, pickets, demos and media coverage. Kiranjit became a household name. For us, it was also a high point of feminist activity in the nineties. This case received support from unexpected quarters within the community and did much to raise awareness of domestic violence and to understand the plight of women trapped in such situations.

back to top

In the early 1980s the Tory Government introduced a set of immigration rules to prevent people from abroad being able to enter the UK and stay here permanently through marriage. The key changes were the introduction of the primary purpose rule, one-year rule (OYR) and the no recourse to public funds requirement. The one-year rule introduced the requirement that people coming here to join their spouse must remain in the marriage for at least one year before they can apply to stay here permanently. The application for leave to remain must be supported by both parties. A person from abroad who does not apply at the end of the probationary period automatically becomes an overstayer liable to being removed from the UK even if the marriage is continuing. A person whose marriage breaks down for whatever reason before obtaining settlement is equally vulnerable to removal.

The no recourse to public funds requirement dictated that persons coming to the UK must be financially supported by their spouses or must support themselves by working. They are not entitled to welfare benefits, council housing or to use publicly funded facilities such as refuges unless they are able to pay rent. The OYR made no concession to those in genuine marriages whose marriages had then broken down, particularly due to violence from the UK based spouse. Women whose marriages broke down due to domestic violence had only two options in order to avoid deportation: to apply for refugee status on the grounds of gender persecution; or apply for leave to remain on compassionate grounds. These cases were rarely successful even where women had remained in marriages for a number of years and had children unless a co-ordinated and long-term public campaign was fought on an individual basis.

We campaigned for the abolition of the OYR. The Home Office was not prepared to discuss this even though our research had shown that only a small number of women were affected by this, about 500 women per year. We put forward a range of options including a change to the OYR itself and the introduction of concessions to those affected by it. We concentrated on three areas of concern; firstly what proof women would have to provide that domestic violence had taken place, secondly pressurising the Home Office to remove the no recourse to public funds rule so that women would not face financial destitution if they left their homes and finally arguing that women who had been in violent marriages for several years and who had effectively become overstayers should be included in the concession.

Finally in 1999, concessions were introduced to allow women whose marriages had broken down as a result of domestic violence to stay in this country. The standard of proof of domestic violence required under the concession was still too high, too rigidly applied and generally unreasonable. In November 2002 the Government announced that it intended to incorporate the domestic violence concession into the Immigration Rules and, as a result of pressure from us, widened the type of evidence that was acceptable. Although this was a great victory for us, the issue of overstayers remains unresolved and the no recourse to public funds now offers women the stark choice between domestic violence and destitution. To make things worse, the government extended the one-year probationary period to two years in 2003. We are continuing to campaign for the abolition of the no recourse to public funds rule.

Added February 2007: To register with the Home Office as an approved Domestic Violence organisation providing evidence under the Domestic Violence Immigration Rule should complete the declaration and send to: Andrew Harris, Managed Migration Strategy and Review, 11th Floor, Apollo House, Croydon CR9 3RR.

Lobbying on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill 2003

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill 2003 is the first piece of legislation that exclusively addresses the needs of victims of domestic violence. The Bill improves civil and criminal protection for victims of domestic violence and creates the post of a Commissioner for Victims. However the Bill fails to address the needs of victims of domestic violence subject to immigration control including women who are now subject to the two-year probationary period as spouses and partners.

Southall Black Sisters has been lobbying for reforms, which include making changes to the Domestic Violence Bill, to help these women. We propose that:

These amendments are supported by a number of organisations including the Women's National Commission, Women's Aid, the Law Society, Imkaan, Amnesty International UK, the Greater London Domestic Violence Project, Respect, Rights of Women and many refuges.

The Bill received its 2nd reading in the House of Lords in December 2003. Amendments based upon these proposals relating to access to public funds and extending the Domestic Violence Immigration Rule were tabled by peers from all three parties to Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Bill. The amendments were debated in Grand Committee in the House of Lords on 9th February 2004 and at Report Stage on 15th March 2004. To read the debates click on the following pdf. Although the amendments received cross-party support they were withdrawn in the face of Government opposition to them. The Bill should receive its second reading in the House of Commons just after the Easter recess. The Bill will then be scrutinized by a Standing Committee of MP's in the Commons possibly from early May onwards. Southall Black Sisters will continue to lobby for reforms to the Bill throughout its passage in the House of Commons.

back to top

Zoora Shah came from Mirpur in rural Pakistan in the 1970s following an arranged marriage. She was befriended by Mohammed Azam, a drug dealer from the criminal underworld of Bradford, when she was totally isolated and destitute. Her husband, who had subjected her to violence, abandoned her and her young children while she was pregnant with her third child. Zoora allowed Azam to arrange a mortgage on a house. Although Zoora made the repayments from her benefits, factory work earnings and savings, Azam, a married man, used the fact that the house was in his name to sexually enslave her. This sealed her reputation as a 'prostitute' which she had already acquired by virtue of the fact that she was living on her own in a conservative community like Bradford.

Azam used Zoora for sex as and when he pleased including in a cemetery where she had buried two other children who had died at childbirth. Azam possessed firearms and threatened to use his contacts in the criminal world to find her if she tried to run away. He also often threatened to throw her and her children onto the streets. When Azam was convicted of dealing in heroin and sent to prison for ten years, he tried to pimp Zoora to male inmates on the point of release. Her house had become a prison for her and she could not free herself from Azam's control over her.

Zoora's GP and social services records show that she suffered from depression and illness throughout her married life and relationship with Azam. She had countless abortions, viral and kidney infections and suffered from anaemia and malnutrition. In the last phase of her relationship, Zoora could not tolerate Azam's sexual demands on her. But the final straw came when she feared that Azam had sexual designs on her daughters. Zoora administered arsenic, bought in Pakistan. She did not care whether he lived or died. Zoora was charged with a number of offences including murder. She refused to give evidence out of fear and shame. She chose to remain silent in the hope of saving the honour of her daughters. Zoora was found guilty on all accounts and given a life sentence with a tariff of twenty years.

We helped Zoora prepare her case for appeal on the basis of fresh evidence which was her own testimony which had not been heard before and medical evidence supporting her claim that she was suffering from diminished responsibility at the time of the fatal act. The appeal was heard in 1998. She lost her appeal partly because the judges deemed her story of surviving by her wits in an all-male, criminal world in absolute poverty to be 'incapable of belief.'

Following recommendations made by Lord Chief Justice Bingham in 2000, the Home Secretary reset Zoora Shah's tariff at twelve years. We had hoped for her imminent release after eight years in prison. The reduction in tariff nevertheless represented a major achievement in the circumstances. In July 2004, when her 12 year sentence comes to an end, Zoora will appear before the parole board which will decide whether she is ready to be released.

back to top

Although forced marriage has been a significant part of our work from the very beginning, interest in and awareness of the issue in the media and government circles was sparked off by the tragic case of Rukshana Naz, a 19-year-old Asian woman, who was murdered in Derby in 1998. Her brother strangled her while her mother held her down by her feet. Her mother said, 'it was written in her kismet'.

In August 1999, the Home Office established a Working Group to examine and report on the issue of forced marriage. Southall Black Sisters along with a number of other groups and individuals was invited to join the group. To ensure that the voices of women could reach this Working Group, we organised a meeting of survivors of forced marriage and we mobilised 35 predominantly Asian and minority women's groups and refuges in support of our recommendations to the Group.

SBS resigned from the Working Group when the Group insisted on offering mediation and reconciliation as options to women in this situation. We felt that women usually come to organisations like ours as a last resort, having attempted reconciliation through the traditional community mechanisms of family elders and community leaders. We felt that a woman's safety is paramount and that her safety could not be monitored or guaranteed when she was reconciled into the home. However, we did produce our own report on Forced Marriage one year after the Working Group's own report, A Choice by Right to assess whether the recommendations made by the Home Office Working Group were beginning to make an impact.

Most of our work in this area has consisted of making recommendations to the Home Office, the Police, the Foreign and Consular Service, Social services, Schools and Health Authorities on good practice and minimum standards when dealing with women and girls who face the possibility of forced marriage and/or abduction. We have been especially concerned by the reluctance of statutory agencies to intervene in such cases, seeing them as a cultural practice and believing that it would be racist to intervene. We have been campaigning for a widespread acceptance of the view that it is racist not to intervene and that it is the human right of all women to expect and be afforded state protection against violence.

As a result of our intervention, the Foreign Office appears to have taken some positive steps in investigating and supporting those women who have been abducted to the sub-continent although the service is still patchy. However, they appear to have taken on board the fact that even where a woman may be a dual national because the country of her parents' origin may have conferred dual citizenship automatically, the Foreign office has a duty to that woman. We have also argued that forced marriage should be dealt with as part of the national strategy on domestic violence to avoid marginalisation of the issue.

Urgent….Attention…Urgent…Attention….Urgent…Attention…. Please Respond!

Marriage to Partners From Overseas – Border and Immigration Agencyconsultation: no doubt many of you will be aware of the proposals contained in this consultation document on marriage to overseas partners. The deadline for the response is 27 February 2008.

Download the Southall Black Sisters letter outlining the main issues and SBS's position
Download the BIA Proforma for responses

back to top

Campaign to abolish no recourse to public funds

Every year, hundreds of black and migrant women face domestic violence from their husbands and families in the UK. For many, their insecure immigration status renders them extremely vulnerable to abusive partners who exploit their position by subjecting them to often extreme forms
of violence, imprisonment and domestic servitude, usually with impunity. Many abusers know that these women cannot report them to the authorities for fear of being sent back to their countries of origin where, as a divorced or separated women,
they are likely to face persecution from the state and society.

In 2002, following immense pressure, the government introduced the 'domestic violence rule' in immigration law, which states that if a person married or living with a settled partner can provide specific evidence to demonstrate that she/he is a
victim of domestic violence and meet other conditions, she/he can remain in the UK indefinitely. But for a significant number of women, the existence of the 'no recourse to public funds' requirement in immigration and welfare law, prevents them from
making use of the domestic violence rule because they cannot access safe housing or benefits to escape domestic violence. The result is that they are faced with a stark choice, leave and face destitution or stay and risk their lives.

The 'no recourse' requirement bars anyone entering the UK on the basis of marriage from relying on public housing or benefits until their immigration position is regularised. This forces women into
positions of economic dependency on the settled spouse or partner. The result is sheer desperation on the part of the individual and their advisors.

This campaign brings together key women's organisations (see below) to highlight the devastating impact of 'no recourse to public funds' on the lives of minority women without secure immigration status and who are subject to domestic
violence in the context of the marriage, employment and trafficking.

Supporting organisations:
• Amnesty International UK
• Greater London Domestic Violence Project
• Imkaan
• Kalayaan
• Newham Asian Women’s Project
• Poppy Project (Eaves Housing for Women)
• Refuge
• Soroptimist International (Rugby)
• Southall Black Sisters
• Women’s Aid (England)
• Women’s Resource Centre
We call on the government to end the double standards in its approach to domestic violence, allowing some women the right to seek protection but not others. Alternative sources of long term funding must be found. Southall Black Sisters has
proposed that costs are retrieved from perpetrators as a means of holding them accountable.

We call on the government to:
• Abolish the 'no recourse' requirement for abused women who have insecure status.
• Provide a special fund pending long term solutions, financed out of the Victim Fund and other sources to enable all women to have living expenses and have access refuges and local authority accommodation pending a final decision on applications to remain in the UK.
• Fast track applications to remain in the UK (process within 2 months) where there is prima facie evidence of domestic violence.
• Reform the Domestic Violence Rule so that all types of evidence of domestic violence is accepted.
• Extend the domestic violence rule to all abused women with an insecure immigration status and introduce similar protection for trafficked women subjected to sexual and economic abuse and to
overseas domestic workers experiencing violence from employers.
• Provide adequate levels of legal aid so that there is access to good quality legal advice and assistance.

Download this leaflet for information on what you can do to support this campaign.

ALERT: DAY OF ACTION – 23RD APRIL 2008

The Abolish No Recourse Day of Action is on the 23rd April! Please put the date in your diary.

Taking Action:

The campaign resource pack is available here. The pack contains:

- A brief background on no recourse to public funds
- Details of the Day of Action
- Actions you can take, plus tips on meeting with and lobbying your MP.
- Case studies and examples of other organisations actions.
- Charities and campaigning.
- A template letter, press release and model resolution
- Fact sheet on the issues to help you campaign.
- Links to further resources and a list of affiliated individuals and groups.

On the Day:

The plan for the Day of Action is to assemble at 11.00am for a demonstration at 11.30-12.30 on the Embankment opposite Portcullis House, Westminster, London (nearest tube Westminster) we were not able to get permission to gather in Parliament Square. A big, bold and beautiful banner is being made by an Amnesty artist. Please wear black on the day.

The public meeting will begin at 1pm in Portcullis House, details of the speakers will follow shortly.

If you organising a coach party for the day of action on the 23rd, please make sure your coach company arranges a place to park, as this may need to be booked in advance!

Tell us about your actions!

back to top