Foster broke entry rules to help Cherie buy properties

Convicted fraudster could have been held in detention centre, Home Office says, but he was given the benefit of the doubt

Peter Foster's work for Cherie Blair over the purchase of two flats in Bristol broke the special terms of his permission to stay in Britain, the Home Office confirmed last night.

As a "legal entrant" Mr Foster was not allowed to take paid or unpaid work. Any breach of this condition leaves him liable to detention at an immigration centre. But Mr Foster, a convicted fraudster, has been given the benefit of the doubt and has retained his liberty.

A Home Office spokeswoman said "temporary admission" was granted only on the strict condition that the applicant lived at a specific address, reported to an immigration office and did not take paid or unpaid work.

Immigration lawyers said the email correspondence between Mrs Blair and Mr Foster clearly indicated he had been working since he was given permission to enter Britain.

We now know that Mrs Blair not only accepted Mr Foster's advice, thanked him profusely and called him a "star", she allowed him to find an accountant for her, Andrew Axelsen, who is awaiting trial in connection with suspected money laundering.

Moreover, Mr Foster is said to have sold information and stories to the Daily Mail, actions that could also constitute a breach of his temporary admission conditions.

The Home Office declined to discuss specific details about Mr Foster's activities, but a spokeswoman said: "If there has been a serious breach, it's down to the immigration office to review it. When they [the applicant] attend the review, this will be pointed out to them and the immigration officer will talk to him about it. If it is considered to be a serious breach of the regulations then he can be detained at an immigration detention centre."

The spokeswoman refused to say whether Mr Foster's work for Mrs Blair had influenced decisions by immigration officers on the speed at which his application should be processed, or whether it had influenced arguments raised by the Home Office in opposing his legal challenge to his removal.

Mr Foster was given the benefit of the doubt when he arrived in the United Kingdom on 31 August on flight ZB019 from Malaga. Immigration officers were aware of his criminal record but instead of asking him to leave on the first flight home he was granted temporary admission to enter. The Home Office said that this was to give immigration officers time to consider issues that Mr Foster may have raised on his arrival, which they decided needed further exploration. But by 3 September officers had ruled that his removal would be "conducive to the public good".

If an entrant has been granted permission for temporary admission, he can use the law to challenge any decision relating to his application.

The Home Office minister Beverley Hughes said yesterday: "This case has aroused considerable public interest, which has centred in part on the way in which decisions have been made in the case, and the integrity of Home Office staff has been questioned.

''That is why we wanted to make the details of the case public so people can see for themselves the entirely impartial and proper way in which it has been handled, with no special treatment at any stage."

Immigration lawyers said the legal process in Mr Foster's case could take more than a year. His solicitors are expected to lodge papers in their application for a new hearing by 18 December, officials at the Court of Appeal said. If successful, a single Lord Justice of Appeal will decide the case.

Mr Foster is seeking permission to appeal against Mr Justice Cooke's decision last month to refuse him a judicial review. A case lawyer at the Court Of Appeal civil appeals office, Mark Brodrick, said: "If at that stage the application is refused, Mr Foster's solicitor can ask for a renewal of the application in open court. It is difficult to see how such a hearing could be convened before Christmas."

The initial stage had not yet been allocated to any particular judge, Mr Brodrick said. "We have probably around 16 or 17 judges with some degree of relevant public law expertise."