|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 16, 2022 9:00:38 GMT
As most if not all alleged Asylum Seekers and alleged economic migrants do not have any personal documents either destroyed by them or confiscated by the smugglers that enter the UK via a rubber dinghy back of a lorry to get into the UK, are entering the UK unlawfully, the fact that the authorities choose not to prosecute all of them does not mean they entered the UK lawfully.
The reason their phones may be taken off them IMO is in order to gain intelligence possibly contact numbers of the smugglers, but once done I would expect them to be returned
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 7:16:11 GMT
Several months ago the High Court ruled that the Home Office practice of taking mobile phones off small-boat arrivals and extracting data was unlawful. Apparently the policy was in effect during 2020 and in that period some 2,000 phones were confiscated.
In a recent hearing the Court has ruled that the 1,300 migrants whose phones have not been returned are entitled to financial compensation, the amounts to be determined in a later hearing.
Per the Court, the practice - which has now ceased - was unlawful and there had been “a failure of governance”. The judges ruled there was no parliamentary authority for seizures and data extractions and that the legal power officials thought they could use was the wrong one.
The Home Office defended its right to seize the mobile phones, saying it helped officials gather evidence about the people smugglers who organise such journeys. “Our staff are fully trained to ensure any use of powers to seize mobile devices is proportionate, necessary and based on reasonable grounds of suspected involvement in criminal activity such as piloting a small boat.
Lawyers who brought the high court challenge on behalf of three of the asylum seekers welcomed the ruling, one stating “We hope that lessons will be learned from this case.”systematic extraction of personal data from vulnerable asylum seekers, who were not suspects in any crime, was an astonishing and unparalleled assault on fundamental privacy rights."
Another instance of proper judicial oversight of the executive branch or is the law being an ass (yet) again?
Given the hearing was to admonish the Home Office for what can only be described as lying to the court, it would seem that any asinine behaviour emanated from what was Patel's empire at the time. The dressing down was, no doubt, a relief for some hapless official(s) who might otherwise have been tried for contempt or charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.
As to the substance of the case; when the Home Office admitted the policy was in existence (having previously denied the same), it conceded the policy was unlawful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 17, 2022 8:30:05 GMT
This Court case was brought about to settle a Legal Argument between the Home Office Immigration Officials who thought they had the authority to seize phones from those who had entered the UK unlawfully in order to try and gather intelligence from the phones
Intelligence that may help identify the Organised International Criminal Gangs that facilitate, and help alleged asylum seekers economic migrants to enter the UK unlawfully earning the criminal gangs millions of pounds week in week out, after all the Home Sec and Immigration Officials are charged with protecting our borders to keep undesirables out of the UK
The Lawyers acting on behalf of three asylum seekers thought the Home Office were wrong, after hearing both sides of the legal argument the Judge concluded that the Home Sec Home Office etc were wrong they did not have the authority, now the new Home Sec will have to reconsider what to do next if anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 8:50:26 GMT
This Court case was brought about to settle a Legal Argument between the Home Office Immigration Officials who thought they had the authority to seize phones from those who had entered the UK unlawfully in order to try and gather intelligence from the phones Intelligence that may help identify the Organised International Criminal Gangs that facilitate, and help alleged asylum seekers economic migrants to enter the UK unlawfully earning the criminal gangs millions of pounds week in week out, after all the Home Sec and Immigration Officials are charged with protecting our borders to keep undesirables out of the UK The Lawyers acting on behalf of three asylum seekers thought the Home Office were wrong, after hearing both sides of the legal argument the Judge concluded that the Home Sec Home Office etc were wrong they did not have the authority, now the new Home Sec will have to reconsider what to do next if anything. No:
The defendant has accepted that she operated an unlawful policy during the relevant period. That policy changed in certain respects during the relevant period, but it was unlawful in some material respects throughout. It is agreed that a further hearing, following this judgment, will be required to consider what relief is required and to address also the extent and consequences of an apparent failure by the defendant (for which the court has received an apology) to comply with her duty of candour when responding to these claims for judicial review. Her initial stance was that there was no policy of the kind which is now admitted, and which is also now admitted to have been unlawful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 17, 2022 8:59:51 GMT
The obvious conclusion to draw from this episode is that any interaction of the authorities with asylum seekers is unlawful, unless it has been specifically authorised by Parliament. As noted in the original judgment:
"If Parliament sees a need for further legislation to address the problem, then it is for Parliament to do that, and not for the executive to assume powers on the basis of an impermissible construction of existing legislation."
In the meantime the field is open for "campaigners" and lawyers to be creative in looking for loopholes in existing legislation resulting in more paydays for them (the claimants were served by no less than nine barristers including three QCs) and more compo for the 'victims'.
Perhaps it is also time that Parliament reconsidered one of the fundamental beliefs that underpins this entire business: that asylum seekers arriving on UK shores have exactly the same rights to privacy as other people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 17, 2022 9:14:04 GMT
This Court case was brought about to settle a Legal Argument between the Home Office Immigration Officials who thought they had the authority to seize phones from those who had entered the UK unlawfully in order to try and gather intelligence from the phones Intelligence that may help identify the Organised International Criminal Gangs that facilitate, and help alleged asylum seekers economic migrants to enter the UK unlawfully earning the criminal gangs millions of pounds week in week out, after all the Home Sec and Immigration Officials are charged with protecting our borders to keep undesirables out of the UK The Lawyers acting on behalf of three asylum seekers thought the Home Office were wrong, after hearing both sides of the legal argument the Judge concluded that the Home Sec Home Office etc were wrong they did not have the authority, now the new Home Sec will have to reconsider what to do next if anything. No:
The defendant has accepted that she operated an unlawful policy during the relevant period. That policy changed in certain respects during the relevant period, but it was unlawful in some material respects throughout. It is agreed that a further hearing, following this judgment, will be required to consider what relief is required and to address also the extent and consequences of an apparent failure by the defendant (for which the court has received an apology) to comply with her duty of candour when responding to these claims for judicial review. Her initial stance was that there was no policy of the kind which is now admitted, and which is also now admitted to have been unlawful.
I did state the Home Sec and the Immigration Officials were wrong in what they did, that was proved in Court |
|
|
|
Post by Morgan on Oct 17, 2022 9:15:47 GMT
There is only one solution. Anyone of foreign origin who wishes to immigrate to this country for whatever reason should have to apply for entry and get permission to enter before admission.
Any arrivals have presumably passed through or over safe countries before reaching our shores and their applications should be considered by our embassies there to decide whether or not they are likely to be or become suitable citizens.
Any arrivals who have not followed the system would be refused entry. This would apply except in cases where we and other countries would take an approved and fair number of refugees from areas adjacent to war zones etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 9:51:59 GMT
The obvious conclusion to draw from this episode is that any interaction of the authorities with asylum seekers is unlawful, unless it has been specifically authorised by Parliament. You think? I think the obvious conclusion is that if a government department is going to decide a policy, it's a good idea to check that the policy is lawful. Oh, and it's probably not a good idea to lie about the existence of a particular policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 9:54:37 GMT
No:
The defendant has accepted that she operated an unlawful policy during the relevant period. That policy changed in certain respects during the relevant period, but it was unlawful in some material respects throughout. It is agreed that a further hearing, following this judgment, will be required to consider what relief is required and to address also the extent and consequences of an apparent failure by the defendant (for which the court has received an apology) to comply with her duty of candour when responding to these claims for judicial review. Her initial stance was that there was no policy of the kind which is now admitted, and which is also now admitted to have been unlawful.
I did state the Home Sec and the Immigration Officials were wrong in what they did, that was proved in Court It didn't need to 'proved in court', the Home Secretary conceded it was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 17, 2022 10:07:20 GMT
The obvious conclusion to draw from this episode is that any interaction of the authorities with asylum seekers is unlawful, unless it has been specifically authorised by Parliament. You think? I think the obvious conclusion is that if a government department is going to decide a policy, it's a good idea to check that the policy is lawful. Oh, and it's probably not a good idea to lie about the existence of a particular policy. Better yet, empower the Home Secretary to implement any operational procedures necessary to deal with asylum seekers and other unwanted foreigners, short of causing physical harm. Then Parliament won't have to dot every i and the Courts won't have any grounds to interfere.
The liberal sacred cow of 'universal' rights has to be led to the slaughter sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 17, 2022 10:08:11 GMT
Then why was it put before the High Court?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 17, 2022 10:15:12 GMT
Then why was it put before the High Court? Ambulance-chasing lawyers eager for another payday. Paid for by you, the taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 10:17:34 GMT
You think? I think the obvious conclusion is that if a government department is going to decide a policy, it's a good idea to check that the policy is lawful. Oh, and it's probably not a good idea to lie about the existence of a particular policy. Better yet, empower the Home Secretary to implement any operational procedures necessary to deal with asylum seekers and other unwanted foreigners, short of causing physical harm. Then Parliament won't have to dot every i and the Courts won't have any grounds to interfere.
The liberal sacred cow of 'universal' rights has to be led to the slaughter sooner rather than later.
Well quite. Why bother Parliament with minor detail - just put the Home Secretary above the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 10:19:22 GMT
Then why was it put before the High Court? Because until proceedings were in train, the Home Office denied it was operating the policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 17, 2022 10:23:07 GMT
Then the due process of Law ran its course, when confronted with overwhelming evidence many defendants put their hands up, damage limitation
|
|
