1. For #WindrushDay I'm going to share the story of Zaffar Mirza, a 56 year old Pakistani man who was lawfully living with his family in Edinburgh until one day he lost his passport and became a victim of the #HostileEnvironment, two years before the #Windrush scandal broke.

2. In 1967, aged 8, Mr Mirza moved from Pakistan to London with his family. He had a difficult youth, and spent some time in local authority care and juvenile detention before moving to Scotland aged 17. There, he met and married a British woman, Mrs Begum, one year later.

3. Together they raised a family. All of their children were British. He chose not to apply for British citizenship himself, always viewing his status in the UK as secure. After all, his Pakistani passport contained a 1970s stamp which clearly stated he had indefinite leave.

4. 40 years later, in 2012, he lost his old passport with the stamp. He reported it to the police and, with help from his wife, applied to the Home Office for a replacement. Little did he know that by summer 2012, the hostile environment was oven ready and good to go.

5. In December 2012, the Home Office refused his application, stating it was unable to confirm he had ever been granted indefinite leave. If he was able to provide evidence that he had been continuously resident in the UK from 1972 the decision might be reconsidered.

6. In the meantime, his case was referred by the Home Office to Capita Business Services (remember them?) who began writing to inform him that the "overwhelming majority of people who visit the United Kingdom do so in accordance with our immigration laws". https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/home-office-details-incentive-payments-capita-deportation-work

7. The communications from Capita were scary, including this "statement of intention to depart" demanding a booked flight out of the UK. If the person didn't want to "depart", an italicised statement reminded them they had no valid leave or outstanding appeal rights.

8. Mr Mirza made a second application, this time with as much evidence as he could obtain, even old 1960s local authority records. Over the course of the next year, the Home Office made a number of outlandish demands, including a piece of evidence for every 2nd year since 1973(!)

9. The Home Office's refusal crystalised in this letter, titled STAYING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ILLEGALLY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. It informed Mr Mirza of his liability to be removed in ten days. It informed him of the criminal sentences he could receive.

10. Was Mr Mirza in the UK illegally? No. He had simply lost the one document that proved his right to reside. In the absence of a document, he (and all the other Windrush victims) were judged guilty until proven innocent.

11. Like the citizens of the West Indies more frequently covered in the media, Mr Mirza was a Commonwealth citizen when he arrived in 1967. Commonwealth citizens could "freely land" in the UK. This meant he landed freely without restriction on his right to reside.

12. Mr Mirza never needed any kind of documentary evidence of his right remain. He was free to be here. Nevertheless, sometime in the mid-late 1970s, after commencement of the Immigration Act 1971, his passport was stamped with indefinite leave to remain. This was his proof.

13. He travelled to Pakistan on two occasions for short holidays and both times he was admitted back in to the UK without issue. The Home Office of course had no record of these travels, or, more crucially, of his indefinite leave to remain. He was not on any of their databases.

14. In this manifested one of the cruellest aspects of the hostile environment: without making any effort to document the Windrush generation, the government began to brutally punish that same absence of documentation. Documentation which was not required in the 1960s.

15. And so Mr Mirza had no choice but to litigate to fight for his right to remain with his family in his home country. As Mr Mirza had no appeal right against the refusal of a new indefinite leave document, the only remedy was the long and expensive process of judicial review.

16. The Home Office pulled every dirty trick in the book, including re-issuing a bolstered refusal letter mid-way through litigation and waving it around. They even instructed one of Scotland's most senior immigration QCs without telling us until the night before the hearing.

17. The case was litigated at the Court of Session with the amazing Lesley Irvine instructed as Mr Mirza's Advocate (Barrister). Lord Turnbull found in favour of Mr Mirza and reduced (quashed) the Home Office's decision. You can read the judgment here. https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2016/[2016]CSOH73.html

18. This case cost the Home Office just shy of £20,000, not including it's own legal fees, which likely amounted to the same again. Or more; QCs do not come cheap. And all of this expense in the name of removing a man from his lawful home, in the name of the hostile environment.

19. Thankfully Mr Mirza is still here, but what if he had bowed to Capita's threats? What if his wife had not contacted a lawyer? What if the Home Office had succeeded in removing him? The fear instilled by letters like the ones Mr Mirza received must never be repeated.

20. Closing quote from Lord Turnbull at paragraph 65: “I am also satisfied that [the Secretary of State] has not considered the proper question at any stage in this evolving process and...

21. “... I am satisfied that she has not weighed what the preponderance of the information provided by the petitioner tends to establish about absence from the United Kingdom for any continuous period of two years.”

22. And who was the Secretary of State vehemently defending this litigation? Yep... Who else...