logo
Call for protection to stop parents being ‘punished' over Channel crossings

Call for protection to stop parents being ‘punished' over Channel crossings

Yahoo06-04-2025

Campaigners are calling for stronger protections to prevent parents being punished for trying to seek sanctuary with their children under a new offence over English Channel crossings.
Those who endanger or risk another life at sea during the dangerous journeys could face five years in jail as part of Government plans to curb crossings and crack down on people smugglers.
According to the Home Office, the offence is to stop more people being crammed into unsafe boats and would apply to those involved in physical aggression and intimidation, as well as anyone who resists rescue.
But the clause laid out in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill currently going through Parliament has been described as 'ill-defined' and could apply to a wide range of conduct beyond violence.
Regardless of any reassurances from ministers, charity Freedom From Torture has raised concerns that any future government would be 'free to apply this clause broadly'.
The draft law reads of the offence where a person 'did an act that caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury to, another person'.
This could include physical or psychological injury, and covers journeys by water to the UK from France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Campaigners believe 'at the very least' the offence should be amended to clearly define the acts being criminalised.
Sile Reynolds, head of asylum advocacy at Freedom From Torture, told the PA news agency: 'If this Bill goes through, the Government risks punishing parents rather than protecting families seeking sanctuary.
'We're gravely concerned that the offences in the Bill are so broad they'll catch everyone in the same drag net.
'What's deeply disturbing is that the Government itself has recognised this could result in the prosecution of parents who make the unbearably difficult decision to bring their children on these dangerous journeys to reach safety in the UK.'
In the Bill's document on the European Convention on Human Rights, it reads that while it is 'very unlikely', there is 'no absolute bar' to prosecuting parents who have taken children on these journeys, which could result in the break-up of families.
It said any decision to prosecute a parent would be made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on a case-by-case basis, and CPS policy is normally not to prosecute parents, and therefore is an 'appropriate safeguard'.
A refugee mother who fled torture at the hands of her family in Iraq with her children said the Bill will 'never stop' people from coming if violence and conflict continues in their home countries.
In comments shared through Freedom From Torture, Gulan, who wished to remain anonymous, said: 'We want to keep our children safe, but there aren't enough safe ways to escape.
'Instead of making things harder, the Government should create safe routes for families. It's really sad that we aren't getting full help to escape from danger.'
The mother-of-two escaped when her youngest child was five, after being locked up and tortured by her family, who said they would kill her for falling in love with a man from another religion.
She embarked on a nine-month 'terrifying' journey where she did not know their destination until authorities took them in once they arrived in Dover.
'We left everything behind to save my children, as there was no protection for us,' she said.
Gulan described how they were sold by smugglers to other smugglers once they reached specific locations and were not allowed to ask questions or find out where they were going.
'It was terrifying and depressing, and I don't want to remember it as it was another trauma layered on top of the violence we had experienced at home,' she added.
Eventually, she said in France the smuggler told them to sneak into the back of an overcrowded lorry heading for a goods boat.
She said since arriving in the UK her family have 'integrated into the community and found happiness'.
Ahlam Souidi, who runs Freedom From Torture's Women Together group for survivors, which includes Gulan, said of the women: 'They identify as victims – not criminals – and they believe it is essential that they are supported in rebuilding their lives, not punished and victimised for a second time.
'They urge us to consider the reality of their situations – what would you do if you were in their shoes?
'These are the realities that must be acknowledged and addressed with urgency. '
A Home Office spokesman said the upcoming law will secure Britain's borders by strengthening law enforcement's ability to identify, disrupt and prevent organised immigration crime faster and more effectively.
'The endangerment offence in the Bill is targeted solely at those individuals who put the safety and lives of others at risk during dangerous Channel crossings, something that no responsible parent would ever do to their child,' the spokesman added.
'As normal, prosecutors will look at all factors when considering a case.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

It's fair to criticise ‘activist' Hermer, says his lawyer friend
It's fair to criticise ‘activist' Hermer, says his lawyer friend

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

It's fair to criticise ‘activist' Hermer, says his lawyer friend

Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, can be 'fairly' criticised over his 'activism' as a lawyer, a legal friend has said. Ben Williams KC said Lord Hermer was an 'open activist' throughout his career, and claimed Sir Keir Starmer would have known this when he appointed him Attorney General. He suggested this provided an insight into the Prime Minister's own views on how the law could be used to pursue a political agenda. The suggestion comes despite Lord Hermer's claims that lawyers only take cases based on the 'cab rank' principle, which requires barristers to accept cases within their area of expertise, regardless of the client. Mr Williams, who has presented cases with Lord Hermer, made his comments on Twitter in response to a video issued by Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, in which he attacked Lord Hermer for spending his career 'defending Britain's enemies' in court. Credit: X/@RobertJenrick Saying the Attorney General was unfit for the job because of his past legal activism, Mr Jenrick linked him to a range of controversial figures he has represented, including Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum, the Isis bride, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, described as Osama Bin Laden's 'right hand man'. Mr Williams tweeted: 'As a lawyer [and] a friend of Rich Hermer, I find this unpleasant. But before the usual suspects erupt, it's also entirely fair political comment. 'RH was an open activist throughout his career, [and] Starmer knew this when he chose to knife his shadow AG [Emily Thornberry] to appoint RH instead. 'This is obviously revealing about Starmer's own position on using the law as a political instrument; [and] both he and Rich will have known perfectly well that the latter's long history of acting against the UK Government would be subject to legitimate political attack. 'On reflection, I should have said that I find it discomfiting. It is not unpleasant.' Lord Hermer has come under increasing pressure over several controversial moves in Government, including a key role in Britain's surrender of the Chagos Islands. He was also forced to apologise for a 'clumsy' remark that compared Conservative and Reform calls to quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with the early days of Nazi Germany. Sir Keir has faced calls to sack his Attorney General, with Kemi Badenoch arguing that Lord Hermer 'believes in the rule of lawyers, not the rule of law'. Lord Hermer and his allies have previously argued that he has only represented controversial figures as a result of the 'cab rank rule', an ethical principle that requires lawyers to accept instructions from clients, even if they disagree with the views or alleged crimes. However, in a previous tweet, Mr Williams challenged the concept barristers are strictly forbidden in any case from refusing to represent a client on the grounds they found them objectionable. Responding to a Twitter user making that argument, he said: 'This is at best unreal. You know perfectly well that the Bar is full of people who say 'I only defend', 'I won't represent alleged rapists', or 'I won't represent landlords'. 'As to the last, I went to a judicial valedictory last year where this specific position was openly celebrated. There are entire chambers that declare themselves 'radical'. 'The idea that one can't extrapolate revealed preferences from a career of acting only for a specific demographic is absurd.' In his video, Mr Jenrick challenged Lord Hermer's cab rank defence, saying he 'would have been inundated with cases, able to choose the pick of the bunch'. A Tory source said: 'Starmer and Hermer's mate, Philippe Sands, admitted he refused to represent Augusto Pinochet. The selective use of the cab rank rule is widespread amongst so-called human rights lawyers. Activist barristers now actively boast of their ideological purity.' However, Lord Hermer has been defended by some Tory legal experts. Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, said Mr Jenrick's video was a 'disgraceful' attack on the UK's 'principles of justice and freedoms' which relied on a 'level playing field' for individuals' legal representation under the cab rank rule. A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office said: 'Law officers such as the Attorney General will naturally have an extensive legal background and may have previously been involved in a wide number of past cases. Barristers do not associate themselves with their clients' opinions.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Judge rules Abrego Garcia's lawyers can seek sanctions against government
Judge rules Abrego Garcia's lawyers can seek sanctions against government

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Judge rules Abrego Garcia's lawyers can seek sanctions against government

The judge overseeing the case of wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Wednesday granted a request from his attorneys to file a motion seeking sanctions against the government for failing to comply with discovery requests. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in April ordered the Trump administration to provide discovery evidence showing the process by which Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador despite him being issued a 2019 court order barring his deportation to his home country due to the fear of persecution. Wednesday's order from Xinis comes after Abrego Garcia's attorneys said in a court filing that some of the discovery productions by the government include "highly redacted internal messages" and other materials that were classified as "Confidential or Attorney's Eyes Only" -- without a motion to designate the items as being under seal. MORE: In unsealed declaration, Rubio claims disclosing some information about Abrego Garcia case would cause 'significant harm' to national security The judge directed the government to file its response within seven days of the motion's filing. In a separate order Wednesday, Judge Xinis ordered the unsealing of several filings related to the court's order for expedited discovery, including the transcript of a nonpublic hearing that was held on April 30. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who had been living with his wife and children in Maryland, was deported in March to El Salvador's CECOT mega-prison after the Trump administration claimed he was a member of the criminal gang MS-13. His wife and attorneys deny that he is an MS-13 member. Judge Xinis ruled in April that the Trump administration must "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return to the United States, and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that ruling, "with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." On Monday, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a response to a motion by the government to dismiss the case, calling the argument for dismissal a "jurisdictional gambit." "The Government asks this Court to accept a shocking proposition: that federal officers may snatch residents of this country and deposit them in foreign prisons in admitted violation of federal law, while no court in the United States has jurisdiction to do anything about it," the attorneys said in the filing. "This Court, the Fourth Circuit, and the Supreme Court each rejected that jurisdictional gambit," the attorneys said. "All three courts unanimously affirmed a preliminary injunction that the Government must facilitate the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from El Salvador to the United States." In their 26-page filing, Abrego Garcia's attorneys also said there is no indication to date that the government has tried to take all available steps in good faith to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. "History shows that when the Government makes good faith efforts to facilitate someone's return, it succeeds," they said. "Defendants' refusal to seek Abrego Garcia's return in good faith, while simultaneously claiming his return is out of their hands, does not negate redressability." The attorneys asked the court to shorten the government's time to file a reply brief from 14 days to seven days, saying that "further briefing on recycled arguments should not prolong a case that has already dragged on far too long for Abrego Garcia and his family."

Modi Not Invited to G-7 Summit in Sign of Frayed Canada Ties
Modi Not Invited to G-7 Summit in Sign of Frayed Canada Ties

Bloomberg

time38 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Modi Not Invited to G-7 Summit in Sign of Frayed Canada Ties

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not expected to attend the Canada -hosted Group of Seven summit, a first in six years and a sign of frosty ties between the two nations. The leader has not received an invitation to the summit being held from June 15 to 17, officials in New Delhi said, asking not to be named as the discussions are private. It is the host nation's prerogative to invite non-members, the people said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store