Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

Top Judge defied Theresa May's tough immigration Rules.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Top Judge defied Theresa May's tough immigration Rules.

Post  Panda on Sun 24 Feb - 8:18

Theresa May's tough immigration rules defied by top judge


The country's most senior immigration judge has openly defied the Home
Secretary by insisting that Parliament’s attempt to get tough on human rights
abuses by foreign criminals is outweighed by the European Court.









Mrs May is due to introduce laws
to strengthen existing measures over concerns that judges were not taking them
seriously Photo:
PA






By David Barrett, Home Affairs
Correspondent

9:10PM GMT 23 Feb 2013


811 Comments




In a key ruling, the head of the immigration courts said measures introduced
by Mrs May last summer to stop criminals claiming the “right to family life” were overridden by
judges’ previous decisions on such cases at the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg.


Mr Justice Blake also said that “little
weight” should be given to Mrs May’s immigration rules in cases involving
criminals with children because they were overruled by international agreements
and a previous law passed by the Labour government.


As reported by The Telegraph last week,
Mrs May is due to introduce laws to strengthen existing measures over concerns
that judges were not taking them seriously. The measures are supported by The
Telegraph
’s “End the Human Rights Farce” campaign.


The judge made his criticisms of Mrs May’s laws in a ruling which allowed a
criminal with 30 convictions to stay in Britain, even though the Home Office had
tried to deport him.


The case was written as a “reported determination”, meaning that other
immigration judges will have to follow its example when deciding other similar
appeals.



Related Articles




  • Theresa May: I’ll bring in new law to end human
    rights farce
    16 Feb 2013

  • 'Border Agency ignored tip-off about dangerous
    foreign criminal who targeted our family'
    18 Mar
    2012

  • Judges signal distaste for May’s human rights
    reform
    15 Apr 2012

  • The judges who allow foreign criminals to
    stay
    16 Jun 2012

  • Defiant judges ignore new human rights
    guidelines
    07 Oct 2012


Olufisayo Ogundimu

Olufisayo Ogundimu, a former drug dealer from south London, persuaded the
court that he should not be removed to Nigeria, where he was born, because he
had fathered a child here and has a baby on the way with another woman.

Mr Justice Blake said in his ruling on Ogundimu’s case that the immigration
rules “did not affect the circumstance” when considering the right to family
life, which is guaranteed by Article Eight of the Human Rights Act.

In such cases he said that the way to interpret Article Eight was not to
consider Mrs May’s rules as most important, despite them being passed with
cross-party support by Parliament.

Specifically regarding one of Mrs May’s rules which was designed to mean that
having a child in Britain would not strengthen a criminal’s case against being
deported, the judge said: “Little weight should be attached to this rule when
consideration is being given to the assessment of proportionality under Article
Eight.”

Instead, he said the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and
part of an immigration Act passed by Labour in 2009 took precedence.

Dominic Raab, the Tory MP who has campaigned for tougher rules, said: “This
chronic judicial legislation has undermined public protection and usurped the
democratic will of Parliament.

“We now have around 200 Article Eight cases a year, so it is vital and urgent
that Parliament amends the law to mandate deportation and brush aside these
spurious challenges to the rule of law.”

Ogundimu, 28, arrived in the UK 22 years ago. Tracked down by The
Telegraph
at his girlfriend’s flat in Chislehurst, south-east London, he
said that he was pleased at the decision made by the Immigration and Asylum
Upper Tribunal.

“It’s totally wrong to send people back like that because their family lives
are here,” he said. “If people are a danger to the public and doing serious
offences then send them back, but with me, yeah, I’ve got a criminal record but
did not do anything serious.”

He came to Britain aged six in 1991 with his family. Ogundimu first appeared
in front of the juvenile courts aged 14 for obtaining property by deception.


He has 30 offences on his criminal record, including an eight-month prison
term for possession of cannabis with intent to supply, in 2008.

In 2010, the Home Secretary decided that Ogundimu should be sent to Nigeria
to protect the public. Ogundimu fathered a son with a British woman in 2004 and
the court heard that he looks after the boy occasionally.

It also heard that Ogundimu is now in a relationship with the mother’s
cousin, who is expecting his baby, which was conceived after deportation
proceedings began.

The Home Office argued that Ogundimu was not in a “genuine and subsisting
relationship” with his son or his girlfriend and that his removal would not
breach Article Eight.

He was arrested for possession of cannabis in October 2012, for which he
received a caution, but now claims he is trying to lead a blameless life.

Ogundimu moved back in with the mother of his child in June 2010 after being
in prison. The judge said that he admitted doing so to convince immigration
authorities that he had a genuine family life. He left her for his new
girlfriend a year later.

After hearing evidence from Ogundimu’s current partner, the court decided
that they were in a genuine relationship and the criminal was also playing a
beneficial role in the upbringing of a nine-year-old step-daughter.

Mr Justice Blake’s ruling also indicated that the new rules on applying
Article Eight should not be imposed retrospectively, even though Mrs May set out
that they should.

The immigration rules say a criminal should not be deported if he or she has
a British child and “there is no other family member who is able to care for the
child in the UK”.

The judge undermined this by saying: “We doubt whether it is in any child’s
best interests to lose the contact and support with a caring and devoted parent
simply because someone else can be found to care for them.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has made clear its intention to
bring forward primary legislation to prevent foreign nationals remaining in the
UK through abuse of the Human Rights Act.”























ha

140
re



270

















Facebook


















Twitter



129











Email


















LinkedIn





























In Immigration







White Britons a minority in Leicester, Luton and
Slough






£55m bill for 1,500 foreigners in jail






They say it's impossible to cut immigration.
They're wrong

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Top Judge defied Theresa May's tough immigration Rules.

Post  Panda on Tue 5 Mar - 11:58

Britain's top judge attacks Theresa May's criticism of judiciary


Lord Neuberger has launched an attack on Theresa May for criticising judges
over their failure to deport foreign criminals.









Lord Neuberger said ministers’
criticisms were unfair on judges who 'don’t speak out in public against
ministers' Photo: Paul Grover for the
Telegraph





By Wesley Johnson, Home Affairs
Correspondent

10:30PM GMT 04 Mar 2013




Lord Neuberger said the Home Secretary’s strongly-worded criticism of
immigration judges was “inappropriate, unhelpful and wrong”.


Neither ministers nor judges benefited and the attack last month, which
singled out some judges for ignoring rules designed to enable more foreign
criminals to be deported, were inherently unfair as judges could not fight back.



Lord Neuberger, who took over as president of the highest court in the land
last October, also warned that such public attacks risked “destabilising” the
delicate balance between Parliament and the judiciary.


Mrs May said the failure of judges to take new rules into account meant she
would bring in new laws to stop them allowing foreign rapists and violent
criminals to stay in Britain by claiming a right to a family life.


Asked about Mrs May’s attack, Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court,
said: “I’m concerned about it because I think it’s inappropriate and unhelpful
for ministers to attack individual judges or groups of judges.



Related Articles




  • Iain Duncan Smith: judges should enforce new
    deportation rules
    17 Feb 2013

  • Theresa May: I’ll bring in new law to end human
    rights farce
    16 Feb 2013

  • Judges signal distaste for May’s human rights
    reform
    15 Apr 2012

  • End 'right to family life' farce, judges told

    07 Apr 2012

  • Scrap the Human Rights Act, says May
    01 Oct 2011

  • Why 'hi-viz’ will make the police less visible

    04 Mar 2013


“For a minister to attack a judge I think is also wrong.”

He told the Daily Telegraph: “If we start attacking each other in public when
each group was honestly trying to do its job, even if we don’t agree with the
way they’re doing it, it does no credit either to the minister who’s attacking
or to the judge who is being attacked.

“It’s bad for both of us and I don’t see what the benefit is.”

Asked if ministers should stop making such public attacks, he added:
“Obviously I would prefer it if there weren’t any because I don’t think they’re
appropriate.”

Lord Neuberger said ministers’ criticisms were unfair on judges who “don’t
speak out in public against ministers”.

“One of the reasons why we don’t speak out is it just is destabilising for
the system,” he said.

“We have a very good system in this country of distributing power and
balancing power between the legislature, Parliament and the executive, civil
service, ministers and the judges. We each respect each other’s turf.

“Inevitably there’s going to be tensions, indeed if there weren’t tensions
something would be wrong. If the judges always did things ministers liked then
there would be understandable suspicion as to what was going on.”

But he said any Government minister has “his or her own solution if a judge
reaches a conclusion or adopts an approach the minister doesn’t like”.

“They can appeal the decision and if the appeal fails and the minister still
isn’t happy then the minister can go to Parliament to change the law,” he said.


However, Lord Neuberger, 65, acknowledged the “pressures on people in public
service, in particular on politicians” were great.

“I think that this happens from time to time,” he added.

“It’s not the first time it’s happened.

“It’s fair to say, for both this government and the last government, that
while there have been attacks on judges from time to time, which in my view are
regrettable and shouldn’t happen, there’s never been any question of the
government trying to do anything to undermine the independence of the judiciary,
and that remains the position now.

“I’m concerned but I’m not alarmed.”

The Home Office declined to comment on Lord Neuberger's remarks.























































Share



Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum