General Chat

Theresa May in an interview today says she thinks the judges are working in favour of immigrants who commit crimes in this country to stop them being returned to their country of origin - using the "human rights" card - if they have family here they are being deprived - what do you think - I think they should go back regardless

if the break the law they should be deported :-D
in fact if they break the law deport their full families
then they would police their own freeing the police work load :-D

l think they should go back to!!

jude

Prisoner exchange was very popular during the 'cold war' period. But it cannot be appropriate in these circumstances.

If the UK deports such dodgy individuals, then we must expect the return of our prisoners from abroad, which would not always be a welcome outcome for this country.

Theresa May found it hard to get one or two especially despicable miscreants away from the UK when, apparently, she had the legal opportunity to do so.

But we should not cut off our noses to spite our faces either. So far, all we hear from the UK Government are trite gimmicks to befuddle the electorate. They seem to think that they are always right even when they are not.

Something new must be tried out if only the Government showed some guts.

one criminal claimed he couldnt be deported because he had a cat
i would have deported him and his bleedin cat :-D

Anybody can think what they like but the reality is that the UK is a signatory to the EHR and if Theresa May wishes to deport whoever she wishes than she will need to cancel out and there is no Commons majority for that.

Under long established law the appeal court judges have to follow (a) the wishes of parliament and (b) "natural justice". The latter is important because no member of the government has any power to hire or fire judges and it is (b) that is the backstop against such antics as fascists and communists go in for.

In "following the wishes of parliament" the legal precedent is that the judges are bound to assume that the UK has signed up to international treaties in good faith and hence they are enforceable at law. That means if statute law and the treaty are at variance it is the treaty that will win out.

This is the point that Theresa May and IDS seem incapable of understanding. She and ISD can promulgate rules and interpretations until they are blue in the face but statute law and treaties must and should take precedence.

I very much doubt that she can get legislation through the Commons which will change the present situation to any significant extent. First off there is in any case no commons majority for what she wants and secondly she seems to be asking parliament to effectively act as a court which it has not done since the trial of Warren Hastings.

IDS also will have little success in creating regulations designed to block Romanian gypsies and Bulgarian gangsters amongst others. As it is the UK has lost every single hearing concerning the application of the "Usual Residency Test" to EU citizens and is now very much at the end of the road.

It was Thatcher's government that was so keen to open up the single market and "bring in the peoples of Eastern Europe from the cold". France was basically against.

As you sow so shall you reap.

I was reading a case in our local newspaper last week - man up before the judge for some misdemeanor he had a house and a dog - the judge told him - if you go to jail, your house will be lost and your dog will be destroyed!!!! I thought this was a bit harsh on the dog

they should of saved the dog and put the criminal to sleep :-D :-D

precisely!!!!! [I think he was a shoplifter!!!!!]

they are entitled to a family life true
where they have it is not specified so deport them and if their family agree to his right to a family life they can follow them

I personally know of a case albeit a few years back of a Nigerian rapist being deported (rightly so) despite the fact he had a wife and two children here & an ex wife and child. I do not understand how others seem to pull the human rights act get legal aid to fight it and win. Barristers and Solicitors making a bundle and tax payers here having to fork out.

For once I agree with the thoughts of Theresa May. Even though that may stick in my craw.

Ms May cannot change the law . people need to read the lisburn treaty. the european human rights act, had to be come part of british law because of this treaty. other countries had an opt-out clause were the UK dosent.

The judges interpret the law so it is their decision who goes and who stays. A spokesman said yesterday that a change in legislation is required because judges are there to interpret the law not do the government's bidding. They are supposed to be politically neutral.

As for the cat story the media leapt on that but failed to mention that the cat was mentioned as an aside to the man having a wife and child. That was why he wasn't deported.

Other EU countries seem to manage it ..so I reckon it's about time we toughened up a bit.

Since the role of the Lord Chancellor was diminished in 2005 I have had concerns about the number of times governments of all parties have tried to thwart the decisions of the courts and interfere with their independence.

Prior to 2005 the Lord Chancellor was always either a senior judge or an experienced barrister, one of their prime tasks was to ensure the efficient functioning and independence of the courts.

Since 2005 governments have challenged, High Court Decisions, Court of Appeal Decisions, and no doubt they will challenge Supreme Court decisions.

The television programme Judge John Deed may be fictitious but it does sometimes demonstrate the scenarios that could occur when politicians try to control the courts.

Our judges may make decisions we don't agree with, there are many I disagree with, but they must stand their ground, they are the only protection we have from the excesses of government. Politicians must not be allowed to go down the road of making judges their puppets, if they are allowed to, it will be the start of sliding down a slippery slope to having a legal system like those operated in countries run by dictatorships.

The original aim of the "Right to Family Life" was to prevent the State from placing restrictions on people.
Mission creep has gradually extended this far beyond the original intention.
It SHOULD be interpreted as "If deported you have the right to take your wife, civil partner, children and pets with you".

well said Jules :-)

Although I vehemently defend the importance of the independence of our courts I have to agree that immigrants who commit crimes in this country should be deported. However I think there are to many courts involved in dealing with such cases and that he law is fatally flawed.

The Supreme Court is the highest UK court in the land and as controversial and costly as this may seem, all cases where an immigrant is found guilty of committing a crime that is subject to trial only by a Crown Court, it should be mandatory that the case is referred to the Supreme Court for sentencing and there should only be one sentence, immediate deportation, and unless there are "exceptional extenuating circumstances" leave to appeal should be denied by the Supreme Court.

This would require substantial changes to legislation and any changes would also need to state "unambiguously" what would be exceptional extenuating circumstances, it may also require some additional judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court but that cost would be minimal compared to the cost of the present endless appeals. The court could mirror the workings of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland.

In Scotland the High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court and it sits in various cities and larger towns throughout Scotland. The criminal court below that is the Sheriff Court but its sentencing powers are limited by statute. However, if a Sheriff thinks the crime warrants a higher sentence they can refer the case to the High Court of Justiciary who have the power to impose a higher sentence. To deal with such cases the High Court of Justiciary regularly holds what you might call sentencing sessions.

I like being controversial ;-)

Well I never! Never knew Jules to upset anyone before.

Where has my post gone???