UK to deport foreign criminals immediately; expands ‘deport now, appeal later' scheme
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said, "This Government is taking radical action to deport foreign criminals, as part of our Plan for Change. Deportations are up under this Government, and with this new law they will happen earlier than ever before." She added, "Our message is clear: if you abuse our hospitality and break our laws, we will send you packing." Foreign national offenders make up about 12% of the prison population, costing taxpayers around £54,000 annually per prisoner. Since July 2024, almost 5,200 foreign criminals have been deported, a 14% increase compared to the previous year. The Government has invested £5 million to place specialist staff in around 80 prisons to speed up removals.
Alongside immediate deportation powers, the Government is expanding a scheme that forces some foreign nationals to have appeals against convictions heard from abroad. The number of countries participating in this "deport now, appeal later" scheme will nearly triple to 23, as per a report by AFP . Under this plan, people from these countries will be deported before they can appeal their convictions, with appeals conducted remotely from their home countries using video technology.
Countries added to the scheme include Latvia, Bulgaria, Angola, Botswana, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Australia, Canada, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Malaysia. The government is also discussing adding more countries to the list.
Interior Minister Yvette Cooper said, "For far too long, foreign criminals have been exploiting our immigration system, remaining in the UK for months or even years while their appeals drag on. That has to end. Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system."
Terrorists, murderers, and prisoners serving life sentences will continue to serve their full terms before deportation is considered. The measures will apply to prisoners already in custody as well as those newly sentenced. These moves come amid growing political pressure on immigration policies, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government aiming to address public concerns and counter opposition parties focusing on crime and border control. The Government's broader Plan for Change includes building 14,000 new prison places, reforming sentencing laws, and introducing an immigration system designed to reduce dependency on cheap overseas labour and manage net migration more effectively. The immediate deportation powers require primary legislation, which will be brought before Parliament soon. Once enacted, these laws will help remove foreign criminals faster, save taxpayer money, and enhance the UK's border security.
(With inputs from AFP)
(Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. 3 years on, Akasa's next challenge: Staying in the air against IndiGo's dominance
Jane Street blow pushes Indian quants to ancient Greek idea to thrive
Berlin to Bharuch: The Borosil journey after the China hit in Europe
FIIs are exiting while retail investors stay put. Will a costly market make them pay?
Stock Radar: TVS Motor breaks out from 1-month consolidation to hit fresh high; time to buy or book profits?
FMCG sector: Both a consumption & tactical play; 7 stocks that have an upside potential of up to 30%
F&O Radar| Deploy Short Strangle in Nifty for Theta decay benefits within index range
These large- and mid-cap stocks may give more than 25% return in 1 year, according to analysts
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
In the understaffed NGT, Centre appoints 2 judicial members and 4 new expert members
The Union Environment Ministry has issued an order appointing two judicial members and four expert members to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which is currently functioning below its sanctioned strength. The Centre's order, dated August 11, also ended with immediate effect the extended tenure of two judicial members – Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice Sthalekar, and two expert members, K Satyagopal and Arun Kumar Verma. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, former judge, Delhi High Court, and presently a member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC); and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma, former judge of Allahabad High Court and currently a member of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, are the two new judicial members. Out of the four new expert members, two are Indian Forest Service Officers – Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, retired principal chief conservator of forest, Gujarat, and Ishwar Singh, retired principal chief conservator of forest, Delhi. The other two are Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, currently a member of the Commission for Air Quality Management and former joint secretary, Environment Ministry, and Prashant Gargava, former member secretary, Central Pollution Control Board. It has not been specified when the new judicial and expert members will take charge, and their exact place of assignment is also not clear. S Vineeta, Registrar General, NGT, was not available for a comment on the appointments. Section 4(1) of the NGT Act, 2010, states that the Tribunal shall consist of not less than 10 but a maximum of 20 full-time judicial members and the same number of expert members. Until the Centre's latest order, NGT had only five expert members and six judicial members. Now, a strength of six judicial members will continue, and there will be seven expert members. The NGT has five benches – Principal bench (Delhi), Eastern zone (Kolkata), Western Zone (Pune), Southern Zone (Chennai) and Central Zone (Bhopal). Since Monday, August 12, chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava has been virtually hearing cases listed before the Kolkata bench, along with expert member Senthil Vel. The Supreme Court has, in previous orders, granted tenure extension to three judicial members and two expert members of NGT, given the vacancies and continuing search and selection process. On January 16, 2023, a bench headed by former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ordered that Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, judicial member of the Bhopal bench of NGT, will continue until the selection process for new judicial members is completed. Justice Singh's tenure in Bhopal will end immediately after a newly appointed judicial member assumes charge. Similarly, on April 3, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ordered the extension of tenure for two judicial members and two expert members of the NGT. This allowed judicial members Justice Agarwal and Justice Sthalekar, and expert members K Satyagopal and Verma to continue. All were due to retire in April. Under the NGT Act and as per appointment norms, a judicial member is appointed for five years or till he attains the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier. Justice Singh was due to demit office in 2023; however, he was granted an extension and was also briefly acting chairperson of the NGT until the present chairperson, Justice Prakash Shrivastava, was appointed. A judicial member should be a former judge of the High Court, or a district or additional district judge for 10 years or an advocate with substantial experience in environmental litigation matters before NGT, HC, or SC. Meanwhile, expert members are supposed to have a degree or a Master's in science with 25 years of experience in the relevant field, and five years of practical experience in the field of environment and forests in a reputed national institution. Former state or Central Government officials are eligible for this role.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
31 minutes ago
- First Post
Will Pakistan go to war with India over the Indus Waters? Or are the threats hollow?
The threats continue from across the border. After Asim Munir and Bilawal Bhutto, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif issued a warning over India's decision to pause the Indus Waters Treaty, saying it would teach the 'enemy' a 'lesson it would never forget'. But is there more to it than just words? Fishermen ride their boats in the Indus River. India's decision to pause the Indus Waters Treaty has led to several Pakistani officials to issue threats. File image/AFP In the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam attack, India took stern steps announcing that it was pausing the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi stating, 'Now, India's water will flow for India's benefit, it will be conserved for India's benefit, and it will be used for India's progress.' However, this move of putting the years-old treaty on hold has enraged Pakistan — with its prime minister now issuing threats to New Delhi, saying the 'enemy' would not be allowed to snatch 'even one drop' of water belonging to his country. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD His remarks come after Pakistan's army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir and its former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto issued similar threats. But should these threats worry India? What did Sharif say on IWT? Any attempt to block water flows into Pakistan would violate the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and provoke a 'decisive response', Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said on Tuesday, issuing a stern warning to India yet again. Addressing an event in Islamabad, Sharif was quoted by Geo News as saying, 'The enemy cannot snatch even a single drop of water from Pakistan. If you attempt such a move, we will teach you a lesson you will never forget.' He described water as Pakistan's 'lifeline' and vowed no compromise on the nation's rights under international agreements. What about Bhutto and Asim Munir? Sharif's remarks come after former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari made similar comments, terming the Indus Waters Treaty's suspension an attack on the Indus Valley Civilisation and said Pakistan would not back down if India forced it into war. While speaking at a function on Monday, the Pakistani leader say the country is 'strong enough for war to get back all six rivers,' vowing that Pakistan 'will never bow down'. According to a report by Express Tribune, Bhutto said that the Indus is the singular major water source for the entire country and that the Indus valley civilisation has remained connected with the river for aeons. 'We have fought wars in the past, but the Indus was never attacked, and no one even thought of building dams or canals on the river.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Even Pakistan's Field Marshal Asim Munir issued threats against India over the Indus Waters Treaty. From US soil, the war-mongering general said that Islamabad would destroy any dam if it cut off water flow to Pakistan. 'We will wait for India to build a dam, and when it does so, phir 10 missile sey faarigh kar dengey [we will destroy it with 10 missiles],' he was quoted as saying by The Print. India's decision to pause the Indus Waters Treaty in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, enraged many in Pakistan. File image/Reuters Do these threats hold any water? However, it seems that these remarks are part of just empty rhetoric. The treaty has a redressal system in which disputes are first taken up at the level of the Indus Commissioners of India and Pakistan, then escalated to the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert, and finally to the International Court of Arbitration (CoA) in The Hague. The World Bank itself has no jurisdiction in the matter with President Ajay Banga stating that the said that the agency has no role to play beyond a facilitator in the Indus Waters Treaty signed between India and Pakistan in 1960 for sharing of waters of Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. 'We have no role to play beyond a facilitator. There's a lot of speculation in the media about how the World Bank will step in and fix the problem, but it's all bunk. The World Bank's role is merely as a facilitator,' World Bank President, Ajay Banga, was quoted as saying earlier. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, India has also rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague in this matter. New Delhi has maintained that it does not recognise this body and had earlier insisted that a neutral expert should handle the matter. However, the PCA proceeded, resulting in India boycotting the proceedings, terming them as 'illegal'. In fact, on August 11, the PCA ruled that India must adhere to the Indus Waters Treaty in the design of new hydro-electric power stations on rivers that flow west to Pakistan endorsing Islamabad's position. In its ruling, it noted that it 'does not permit India to generate hydro-electric power on the Western Rivers based on what might be the ideal or best practices approach for engineering' of these projects. However, India has rejected this, maintaining that the arbitration process was unilaterally initiated by Pakistan, violating the treaty's dispute resolution mechanism and undermining bilateral dialogue. The Indus Waters Treaty is very crucial to Pakistan, as it lays down terms for the waters of the Indus River, a crucial lifeline for both countries. File image/Reuters Why is the Indus Waters so important to Pakistan? But why all of this hoopla over pact signed way back in 1960? Pakistan gets around 80 per cent of the Indus basin water, making it one of the largest irrigation systems in the world. About 80 per cent of Pakistan's farmland or nearly 16 million hectares, depends on this water, and 90 per cent of it goes into irrigation. Now, if the water was to dry up here as a result of India holding back water in its reservoirs, Pakistan's farmers might struggle to sow key crops like cotton and paddy on time. This would eventually hurt the country's economy. There's also the matter of power; the lack of water could squeeze power generation, hit factory production and drive electricity prices even higher. And that's bad news because Pakistan's power sector is already drowning in $9 billion of circular debt. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Only time will tell if Pakistan resorts to military solutions on the Indus Waters Treaty. For now, it's a wait and watch game? With inputs from agencies
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
31 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID not proof of citizenship: Bombay HC ruling decoded
The Bombay High Court on 12 August ruled that owning an Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID, or even a passport is not enough to prove you are an Indian citizen. This decision came while rejecting the bail plea of an alleged Bangladeshi man accused of illegally entering India and obtaining forged documents. The bench emphasised that under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual. The accused had claimed to be Indian but failed to produce valid citizenship documents such as a passport or a certificate issued under Indian law. The ruling reinforces that possession of commonly used identity documents does not override the legal requirement to prove nationality. What the Case Was About The man in question, Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, was arrested on charges of: Illegal entry into India Possessing forged Indian identity documents Potential national security violations During the investigation, authorities allegedly found Bangladeshi birth certificates on his phone. While he claimed Indian citizenship and produced Aadhaar, PAN, and voter ID, the court found these insufficient as proof of nationality. Justice Amit Borkar, after reviewing the evidence, observed that citizenship claims must be tested strictly under the Citizenship Act and that the burden of proof lies with the accused when credible evidence raises doubts about nationality. 'The allegations in this case are not small. It is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying a visa. It is about making and using fake and forged identity documents like Aadhaar card, PAN card, and Voter ID, with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen.' "The Bombay High Court rejected regular bail for the applicant, booked under BNS u/s 335, 336(3), 340/3(5), Passport Act u/s 3(a), 6(a) and Foreigners Order u/s 3(1), 3(2), 14, after forensic extraction from his phone disclosed Bangladeshi birth certificates (his and his mother's) and CDR/IPDR logs revealed persistent cross-border calls to Bangladesh-linked numbers. Invoking section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Court held that this credible prosecution evidence shifts the burden to the applicant to prove Indian citizenship; until such proof is furnished, mere possession of unverified Aadhaar, PAN or Voter ID cards whose authenticity is still under UIDAI scrutiny cannot establish nationality or justify release," said Rahul Sundaram, Partner, IndiaLaw LLP. What the Court Said Justice Amit Borkar, delivering the order, made three key points: Identification ≠ Citizenship Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID, and passports are meant to verify identity for services and voting, not to establish nationality. Citizenship Must Be Proven Under the Citizenship Act, 1955 To prove you are an Indian citizen, you must show eligibility through: Birth in India before a certain cut-off date Indian parentage Registration or naturalisation as per law "Under Indian law, documents like Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID establish identity or residence—not citizenship—and the Bombay High Court has rightly held that citizenship must be proved strictly in accordance with the Citizenship Act, 1955 and recognised legal evidence," said Athira Sajan, Associate Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys. Burden of Proof Is on the Individual Under the Foreigners Act, if the state presents credible evidence that raises doubt about a person's citizenship, it is the individual's responsibility to prove they are Indian. The Laws Involved Citizenship Act, 1955 — Defines how citizenship is acquired and the documents needed to prove it. Foreigners Act, 1946 (Section 9) — Places the burden of proof on the person suspected of being a foreign national. Representation of the People Act — Governs voter ID issuance, which is not linked to a citizenship verification process as rigorous as the Citizenship Act. Why Your Aadhaar or Voter ID May Not Be Enough Aadhaar is issued based on proof of identity and residence — not nationality. PAN card is for tax purposes — foreign nationals can also obtain one. Voter ID is linked to electoral rolls — errors or fraudulent enrolment can occur. Passport requires some citizenship verification but can be obtained fraudulently. In short: These documents are valid for day-to-day identification but are not decisive proof of nationality in a court of law. Implications of the Ruling Legal Scrutiny in Citizenship Disputes If your citizenship is challenged, you'll need documentary evidence like birth certificates, parentage records, or official nationality certificates. Stricter Checks for Border Cases
