|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 19, 2022 17:14:40 GMT
It's not an easy read but para 77 seems to be badly flawed and creates immediate grounds for appeal First the judges have effectively said it's OK for someone to be under threat in Rwanda for political opinion as long as they are under no more threat than a Rwandan citizen would be. The test in para 345 B of the legislation is that their liberty must not be under any threat for political opinion. Second the judges appear to set an impossible threshold that evidence of political suppression has to be today's and not the 2020 evidence that was submitted. As I said, I was surprised at this limited win and I'll be surprised if it stands up on appeal. It's not off shoring that is the issue, I fully support that, but Rwanda does not tick the boxes to be regarded as a safe country. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 19, 2022 17:40:05 GMT
Personally, I say splendid. Now if any lawyers wish to argue the toss, put THEM on the first plane out and they can do their arguing on behalf golf their clients from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 19, 2022 17:49:42 GMT
Has anyone ever told him that these people have never known the UK either....  |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 19, 2022 18:33:51 GMT
The Home Office has won a legal challenge against its policy to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda. The decision has just been announced by judges in the High Court in London.
Standby for the appeals: Appeals Court > Supremem Court > European Court of Human Rights.
Nobody's going to be going to Rwanda for quite a while, if ever.
Even so it is a win, which is far better than a lose. Respects to the government lawyers who made it so. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 19, 2022 18:36:04 GMT
Interestingly the judges chastise the PCS Union and the three charities involved for giving themselves the status of 'claimant' in these cases. Per their worships, none of these organisations have any standing in this matter and, in not too many words, need to butt out. This is an interesting ruling that other 'migrants rights' groups will need to take on board before leaping feet-first into litigation in the future. Hopefully the government will press for costs. There were more than 30 barristers including nine KCs involved in this nice little earner. Perhaps they aught to lose their charitable status and pay some tax as well. Political groups can not be charities. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Dec 19, 2022 18:37:35 GMT
One snippet that caught my attention today in Parliament was that Suella Braverman stated that Scotland had point blank refused to accept any boat people, I didn't know that. We are advised daily by the SNP propander machine that Scotland is all inclusive welcoming and full of nice people, whereas these poor distressed boat people have to rely on UKIP fascist racist little Englanders to provide food, lodging, pocket money, dentists and doctors.
Who would have thought it, I will never believe anything the SNP says again.
I'm glad that Courts are back to applying common sense after the terrible Lady Hale and her woke sodden ways, firstly it stamped on Sturgeon and now it has ruled in the Governments favour, perhaps we are getting somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 19, 2022 18:39:12 GMT
Personally, I say splendid. Now if any lawyers wish to argue the toss, put THEM on the first plane out and they can do their arguing on behalf golf their clients from there. This is indeed the plan. You send the applicants over to Rwanda and they are told to make the claim there. If they win they stay in Rwanda and if they lose they get sent home. I suppose the lawyers could try and work via video link. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 19, 2022 19:55:13 GMT
Has anyone ever told him that these people have never known the UK either....
So we can't deport them from a country they've never known to a country that they've never known because they've, er... Never known it.
Yeah, top logic there Jezza. 
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 19, 2022 20:02:40 GMT
Anyways, if it's lawful let's get cracking and send them off there. If they want to appeal subsequently, they can do it from Rwanda.
What's not to like?
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 19, 2022 20:12:34 GMT
Anyways, if it's lawful let's get cracking and send them off there. If they want to appeal subsequently, they can do it from Rwanda. What's not to like? Sure, just one thing, how many have arrived this year alone and how many is Rwanda set up for taking? Why do they need to send them to Rwanda not just process them on arrival and send them somewhere they have been before, back home. The genuine ones would have claimed asylum in another safe nation anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 19, 2022 20:46:57 GMT
If we send them to Rwanda a few at a time then it will do little to deter the masses of them. If we gather them in large numbers then they will not be able to control them. It’s all smoke and mirrors imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 19, 2022 21:27:16 GMT
Anyways, if it's lawful let's get cracking and send them off there. If they want to appeal subsequently, they can do it from Rwanda. What's not to like? Sure, just one thing, how many have arrived this year alone and how many is Rwanda set up for taking? Why do they need to send them to Rwanda not just process them on arrival and send them somewhere they have been before, back home. The genuine ones would have claimed asylum in another safe nation anyway. Rwanda will initially take 1000, with the potential to expand that. You do realise that it is a reciprocal agreement, so it works both ways? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 19, 2022 22:50:41 GMT
Anyways, if it's lawful let's get cracking and send them off there. If they want to appeal subsequently, they can do it from Rwanda. What's not to like? The ECHR. There is some outstanding crap where they are also deciding what the law is, so the plane has to be delayed until they get their shit together. Mind you one hurdle has been cleared so we are happy so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 19, 2022 22:53:50 GMT
Sure, just one thing, how many have arrived this year alone and how many is Rwanda set up for taking? Why do they need to send them to Rwanda not just process them on arrival and send them somewhere they have been before, back home. The genuine ones would have claimed asylum in another safe nation anyway. Rwanda will initially take 1000, with the potential to expand that. You do realise that it is a reciprocal agreement, so it works both ways? It's the legal prototype. You do not invest tons of money in a scheme the lawyers could trash, so you start small and test to see if it works in principle. Once we get to this point we can put tenders out to many other countries, and crank up the scale. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 19, 2022 23:07:35 GMT
Sure, just one thing, how many have arrived this year alone and how many is Rwanda set up for taking? Why do they need to send them to Rwanda not just process them on arrival and send them somewhere they have been before, back home. The genuine ones would have claimed asylum in another safe nation anyway. Rwanda will initially take 1000, with the potential to expand that. You do realise that it is a reciprocal agreement, so it works both ways? I had read that, the whole thing sounds odd, plus the cost of setting it up, why even Rwanda, now it is being advertised as the big answer, I don't think so somehow. |
|
