Thursday, 22 April 2010

UK - A Dumping Ground for Foreign Criminals?

Lord Justice Moses one of the judges who allowed 2 Tamils to remain in UK as they threatened to kill themselves if deported
'The decision defies all common sense' Immigration Minister Phil Woolas. Tough words but you have been in power 13 years. Let's have some action!


Is it me or am I reading more and more stories about illegal immigrants committing serious crimes in our country? Some are undoubtedly thrown out but many others are allowed to stay here. Our judicial system seems to be the only one in the world that takes any notice of the Human Rights Act and it appears that some seriously dangerous offenders are being allowed to stay here in case we breach their rights or they might suffer further punishment if they are returned from whence they came.



I don't think this was being considered by the authors of the legislation, or this. And this man should have have some of his body parts removed for his crimes. If you come from a culture where committing offences carries severe penalties why should you be allowed to come here and commit those offences and not be returned home to face the consequences? And if you want to kill yourself because you have been sent home is that our concern? We won't deport any illegal immigrants if they all try that little wheeze.



This country is going mad.

5 comments:

  1. We are happy extraditing British citizens to other countries where they are quite likely to die. So we can't we send non British people to other countries where they are quite likely to die.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The reason why the UK judiciary are the only ones to take notice of the Human Rights Act is because it is an act of the UK Parliament (specifically chapter 42 of the 1998 statute book)something that it is worrying that a police inspector does not seem to be aware of.

    As we live in a system where there is a convention of Parliamentary supremacy Judges have no choice but to follow any Acts of Parliament that are passed.

    If Parliament passed an amendment that said that the Human Rights Act only applied to legal residents of the UK or even just British citizens they could and judges would be obliged to follow that law. But MP's will not do this as they knew exactly what the effect of passing the Human Rights Act would be when they did it, even if they complain about judicial activism now.

    SabButMadLad, I'd be interested to hear about these instances where British Citizens have been extradited by the UK Govt to countries where they are quite likely to die, something that is not going to happen as if this were true it would be a breach of Article 2 and extremely unlikely if not impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, for 31 years, I thought somebody was dumping criminals (and dumbass folks) into California. Now I don't feel so bad knowing that they are in other places.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mindstarrising - I am aware the HRA is a British piece of legislation. The point I was making is that all EU countries have similar legislation based on the European Convention of Human Rights.
    I also understand that the judiciary, it can be argued, are simply enforcing that legislation in the Courts. The point is that some judges are interpreting it somewhat bizarrely and making stupid decisions
    As I indicated at the beginning of the article, if the Courts are not interpreting the legislation as the law makers or the public at large want then the Government need to take action and make changes to the legislation to stop these crass decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't agree that the judges are interpreting legislation in a bizarre way. I don't deny that there are some instances that defy belief - but thats bound to happen in any system where thousands of different 'judges' are able to take decisions within various limits.

    I think the problem is with the politians. You are probably right that they knew what the outcome of thier legislation would be (if they didn't then they should have done). Mr Woolas is being a bit of a twat, frankly. It's all well and good for him to say the courts shouldn't do x, y or z; but when all is said and done he could propose legislation to remedy what he sees as the problem... has he done that... um... let me thing about it... er... NO he hasn't. So, what's he really doing? He's using a decision that hardly anybody would have actually bothered to read beyond the brief bits in the newspapers and is jumping on a bandwagon of judge bashing to score political points and 'show' the electorate that he's on their side and isn't to blame for these decision, despite it being laws introduced by his party that are being exercised!

    The more people tag along with this idea that judges can somehow ignore whatever Act of Parliament they like the longer politicians get away with ignoring the wishes of the electorate.

    SadButMadLad, it is not correct to say that the UK is the only country in Europe that takes any notice of the ECHR. As far back as 1991, the ECtHR in the case of V and P v France ruled in favour of an application by two Tamils that they should not be returned to Sri Lanka by the French Government.

    Finally, I have to say that I note the link in the post was to this story on the Daily Mail website... on that basis alone we can surely assume that everything in the story was made up by a hack on the Mail's staff.

    ReplyDelete