The observations and opinions of a retired magistrate. Also available my magistrate`s diary at https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/
Thursday, 13 April 2017
EQUALITY FOR WOMEN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The observations and opinions of a retired magistrate. Also available my magistrate`s diary at https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/
On carefully reading Article 8, it does indeed seem that if there's no danger to the public, or risk of repeat crime, then it does indeed apply. This is bizarrely at odds with Article 5, the right to liberty, which has explicit exemptions for detention on conviction.
ReplyDeleteArticle 8 would then seem to apply to any case involving "family life" with little or no risk of recidivism. Infamously, merely possessing a cat has been a factor (if not a determining one) in that consideration.
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Brexit will not affect the role of British courts in cases such as this, since the UK will continue to be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not to be confused with the Court of Justice of the European Union.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, in these times of alternative facts and false news, it’s saddening to see that the wholly debunked story of the cat is still circulating and misleading people six years after Teresa May’s cynical conference speech in which she infamously said "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat." It was then shown that this actually had been made up.
That would be a comforting thought, but it's not so.
DeleteThe initial tribunal judgement contained this phrase:
"The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya (the cat) by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that appellant and his partner enjoy."
That seems as plain as a pikestaff.
At appeal, the judgement concluded:
"The Immigration Judge's determination is upheld and the cat, [Maya], need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice."
A spokesman for the Judicial Office later claimed that the cat was not a consideration - at appeal - but a spokesman is not a judge, and his opinion does not form part of the case law.
The appellant's lawyer also brushed it off as "a light-hearted remark by Senior Immigration Judge Gleeson [which] was taken out of context". But he would, wouldn't he?
Looking at what the judges said rather than the damage control reportage of it, I have come to my own conclusion about whether the cat was a consideration. I'd invite you to do the same.
Suggesting that they will come to the same erroneous opinion that he seeks to persist with, Rogerborg invites readers of this blog to reach their own conclusion about whether the cat played a part (other than providing some humorous lightening of the proceedings) in the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s decision to allow this appellant to remain. Though he leaves readers to rely upon his own very skewed information about the facts. By contrast, I would invite readers to see for themselves the full judgment at www.scribd.com/doc/67437085/Cat-Gate , which makes it clear that the decision was made on other grounds entirely and the cat played no part at all - other than enabling the judge to keep the joke running!
Delete