By Jon Silverman Home affairs analyst

An Afghan family illegally deported by Home Secretary David Blunkett have lost their battle to return to Britain for their appeal.

But the High Court has ruled that the Ahmadi family would have their case heard via a special video link from Germany, paid for by the government.

The home secretary will no doubt be breathing a sigh of relief that he has been spared the sight of television footage showing the Ahmadi family returning to the UK to fight their appeal against deportation.

But, in most other respects, David Blunkett has emerged from the High Court bloodied - and with the prospect of further humiliation to come.

Although the Ahmadis will not attend that appeal in person, their presence via video link will be a salutary reminder that the home secretary - according to Mr Justice Scott Baker - behaved unlawfully in removing them from the country before their claim could be heard by the immigration appeals adjudicator.

In his defence, the home secretary points out that six separate judges had previously backed his view

In a nutshell, it is the latest example of an executive impatient to apply robust and swift solutions to the asylum problem meeting the disapproval of the courts.

Under the 1999 Asylum and Immigration Act, asylum seekers are entitled to remain in the UK if they are appealing against removal on human rights grounds.

Mr Blunkett and his advisers decided that the Ahmadis claim to stay was "manifestly unfounded", and thus fell outside the provisions of the act.

In his defence, the home secretary points out that six separate judges had previously backed his view.

Crucial bill

But now, the issue of what is "manifestly unfounded" will be determined by the Court of Appeal. A lot of cases will hang on the outcome.

Just as crucial for the government is the fate of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill currently before Parliament.

One of its key planks is the implementation of swift removal powers, to prevent what are considered to be hopeless cases taking years to conclude.

The home secretary is not alone in seeking to drive through policies which cause conflict with the law

The objective is to require most appeals to be lodged abroad - as in the Ahmadis case - in the country where they first applied for asylum.

But the justice of this - and crucially, its compatibility with human rights legislation - has yet to be tested and the home secretary may be thwarted in his aim.

The critics say that instead of trying to force through an unworkable policy, Mr Blunkett should instead take more forceful measures to remove failed asylum seekers, tighten the appeals process and narrow the grounds of appeal before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

But the fact remains that asylum is now such a highly charged issue for the states of the European Union that the home secretary is not alone in seeking to drive through policies which cause conflict with the law.