Human rights lawyers blocked from entering Calais Jungle during demolition under State of Emergency ban

Exclusive: French authorities used State of Emergency powers to create a 'protected zone' around the Jungle

Human rights experts say the ban on lawyers entering the Jungle breached 'fundamental rights' by denying vulnerable people legal information at an 'urgent' time (PA)

Lawyers seeking to observe the rights of refugees and migrants during the demolition of the Calais Jungle were denied entry by the French authorities, The Independent can reveal.

An administrative order issued by the Calais prefecture on the first day of the demolition stated entry was banned to everyone except those who had been granted authorisation – an offer made available to journalists and government agencies but not lawyers.

The Independent has also discovered that the order, which decreed the creation of a “protected zone”, was issued under the State of Emergency Act – a measure designed specifically for terrorism threats.

Human rights lawyers from a number of organisations, including France's biggest lawyers' trade union, have launched a joint appeal in a French court to dispute the ban, arguing that it is “illegal” for the authorities to use an emergency law to “forbid access” to legal observers.

Dozens of lawyers – as well as several social workers and NGOs – were refused entry to the Jungle by French police on Monday, and requests for written authorisations were rejected by the prefecture with no explanation given.

As a result many legal advocates, including those who had been visiting the Jungle on a regular basis to voluntarily work with refugees on legal cases – such as asylum claims and counts of police brutality – were not granted access, which human rights lawyers said breached “fundamental rights” by denying vulnerable people legal information at an “urgent” time.

Human rights campaigners and international lawyers have said the decision to block legal observers from entering the camp constituted a “serious breach human rights”, depriving refugees of legal advice and support and refusing the presence of legal observers in a situation where the “risk of error was enormous”.

Eve Shahshahani, an international human rights lawyer who was refused entry and co-drafted the appeal against the ban, told The Independent: “It was urgent for us to go in at this point because these people were being moved to unknown destinations with no one to give them legal advice, or at least information about what happens next. They were denied access to legal information, which is a fundamental right.

“There was no official procedure for applying for a permit unless you had received an invitation to apply for entry, which was only sent to journalists and state organisations. This is not the way administrative power should be exercised and it’s not democratic.

“The local authorities used the State of Emergency law as a blanket to prevent access to part of society and deny the rights of migrants, publicising what they wanted to publicise and hiding what they wanted to hide, and generally forbidding access, which is illegal under French administrative case law.”

Refugees are said to have been deprived of the “most basic levels” of legal information and advice during the evacuation, as adults were ordered to board buses and youngsters underwent “superficial at best” age assessments to determine their age and eligibility to asylum, without the opportunity to challenge decisions made.

Michael Bochenek, senior counsel on children’s rights at Human Rights Watch, who gained access to the site after appealing to the ministry in Paris but was not granted access to observe the registration process, told The Independent: “There were a lot of other very immediate, very obvious problems with the process. There was a lack of information provided to refugees on how to get the protection to which they’re entitled and desperately need.

“I did a lot of interviews with kids and others who had observed the process and it appeared to be superficial at best, relying largely on visual examination, and not given sufficient time. The presence of lawyers would have ensured compliance with the basic due process requirements, meaning people would have been notified of reasons for a negative decision and had the opportunity to seek some sort of reconsideration or appeal. It appears that none of these basic components of due process were followed.”

Francois Cantier, president of Avocats Sans Frontières (Lawyers without Borders), a volunteer legal service that works with vulnerable people around the world, was refused entry to the Jungle along with a team of seven international lawyers, and described the denial of legal observers in a highly volatile situation as “intolerable”.

Mr Cantier told The Independent: “If something really serious happened – as many had feared – lawyers wouldn’t have been on site to immediately assess the situation and then take necessary legal action.

“We wanted to be there first and foremost as observers and judge the circumstances from a legal point of view. It was a powder keg there and the risk of error was enormous. If the situation had degenerated, such as violence, resistance, which had been considered likely then our presence would have been absolutely necessary.

“I cannot understand, how a democratic state like France forbids lawyers from going into an area where people’s human rights are threatened. For me this is intolerable.“

Unaccompanied children are believed to have gone missing as a result of the order after social workers were denied entry, leading to minors who had been assessed and listed by social work teams no longer able to access the support.

Gauri Rajdev, a social worker with Social Workers Without Borders, had been working with children in the camp alongside lawyers the day before the demolition began, but being blocked meant her team was unable to meet scheduled appointments with dozens of youngsters.

Ms Rajdev told The Independent: “It was a shambles. We had arranged to meet about the 40 children we had assessed at 7:45am so we could try to fast-track them through and ensure they were not still in the camp while it was being demolished, and then get them legal representation in the UK.

“The police blocked us at every entrance. I managed to get in about four hours later on a press pass, but didn’t manage to find any of the kids we had planned to help. We’ve now managed to track down quite a few them, but there are still some we can’t get hold of. We're sure at least a few of them have been sleeping rough.”

Responding to the outrage, the prefecture of Calais said only lawyers who had been solicited by a refugee or migrant were granted access the camp during the demolition. A spokesperson said: “The prefecture of Pas-de-Calais has allowed any migrant who sought the presence of a lawyer to assist at any stage of the process within the framework of the humanitarian operation that was conducted in Calais.

“Lawyers who appeared spontaneously without being solicited by a migrant were not allowed access to the registration areas and the CAP. The Defender of Rights and the General Controller had access to these structures.”

The appeal against the administrative order was launched in an emergency hearing on Friday in a court in the French city of Lille, backed by several major NGOs including the Human Rights League and Syndicat des Avocats de France (SAF), France's largest lawyers' trade union.