Events in Clapham should not be used to inflict more miseries on genuine asylum cases

Editorial: Pressing questions must be asked about what went wrong with Home Office procedures in the case of Abdul Ezedi – but sexual crimes ought to mean automatic disqualification for would-be refugees

Clapham chemical attack suspect Abdul Shokoor Ezedi, caught on CCTV in north London (Metropolitan Police/AFP)

Abdul Shokoor Ezedi is the subject of a nationwide manhunt in connection with a horrific assault in south London, involving a mother, two girls and some bystanders who attempted to intervene in the attack. This must primarily be a police matter, to be dealt with through the criminal justice system, with the interest of the victims and the safety of the public central at all times. A crime has been committed, and one of extreme violence that has, so it is said, left those affected with “life-changing” injuries.

Understandably, it has captured the public’s attention and sparked concerns. Quite rightly, the issue of using corrosive substances to injure and disfigure people is one that horrifies, and attention needs to be paid to the ready availability of acids and corrosive alkalines which, in the wrong hands, can be just as dangerous as a firearm or a blade. These assaults were carried out on a residential street and, as far as can be judged, with some forward planning.

Inevitably, because Ezedi has been granted asylum in the UK, this aspect of the case has also attracted comment, some rational and constructive, but far too much which merely seeks to use the misery of the victims of this assault for predictable and spurious political purposes.

Most refugees, it hardly needs stating, are not violent offenders, still less prone to throwing corrosive liquids around. Indeed, while obviously grievously harmful and not taken seriously enough, “acid attacks” are a vanishingly small percentage of all violent assaults, and of that tiny number even fewer are perpetrated by asylum seekers. The horrors that played out in Clapham on Wednesday are no reason to leave the European Court of Human Rights; indeed, they are a violation of human rights.

Still, there are obvious and pressing questions about precisely what went wrong with the asylum system in the case of Ezedi. We know that Ezedi entered the UK in 2016, on a lorry, went on to be convicted of a sexual offence in 2018, had his asylum claim declined twice and yet was successful at the third time of asking in 2021 or 2022, and he is now being sought in connection with appalling crimes. As a matter primarily for the courts in due course, the full details and background to these events will emerge in the proper manner.

But it seems clear that the asylum system needs yet another thorough review so that the public can have confidence in it, and that it serves them and genuine asylum seekers in a fair manner.

The rules on disqualification for offences have been tightened up since Ezedi managed to win his case, but the status of sexual crimes in particular needs to be strengthened as an automatic disqualification.

Sadly – from the experience of thousands of cases not remotely involving refugees – it is accepted that what are called “minor” assaults, such as indecent exposure, can lead to far more serious behaviour – the most shocking example of this being Wayne Couzens, whose aberrant habits eventually led to the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard, as it happens not far away from the corrosive substance attack.

There are particular, detailed matters raised now that need the urgent attention of ministers and their officials. How, for example, can a conversion to Christianity be judged to be genuine, and not a means to cheat the system? Which types of crimes should be regarded as automatic grounds for refusal of asylum – and what then should be done with someone if they are certain to face death on return to their homeland?

What is the proper balance between officials making decisions and judicial reviews – how many appeals should be allowed? And, toughest of all, how can the character and past criminal record in foreign jurisdictions be assessed?

The right to claim asylum should be absolute, but granting it cannot be automatic or unconditional. In the name of equity – and to carry the confidence of the public – the asylum system needs to put greater emphasis on any risks to public safety and the detection of criminality. Yet there is, rightly, also an obvious pressure to process claims rapidly and to deport those who are bogus.

If safe and secure routes – ie outside the existing, special Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine schemes – are established, then claims lodged abroad can be carefully assessed, without anyone having to travel to the UK to stake a claim. The claims can thus, in principle, be given the proper time and attention, and vetting for security. No doubt mistakes may still be made, but the crucial thing is to make those errors of judgement or procedure even rarer. The events in Clapham should not be permitted to inflict more miseries on genuine asylum cases.