Latest news with #IllegalMigrationAct
The Sun
05-05-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Scales of justice weigh heavily in favour of illegal migrants – but here's how Starmer can fix it immediately
THE statue of Lady Justice, who stands over the Old Bailey, well- balanced scales in one hand and a sword in the other, is the perfect metaphor for what Britain's judges should aspire to be: Tough, even-handed and unswayed by prejudice. But in the case of immigration tribunals something seems to have gone terribly wrong. 4 4 4 The scales seem increasingly to be weighed down heavily on one side, the side that favours illegal migrants. Research by the Conservative party has revealed that several judges who oversee asylum cases are also working as barristers representing asylum seekers. Worse, some are involved with campaign groups that advocate on behalf of migrants. One of them, Rebecca Chapman, manages to combine three roles. As well as sitting as an immigration judge, she works as a barrister on migration cases at Garden Court Chambers, a group of barristers renowned for representing left-wing interests in court. But on top of that she also works for a charity called Refugee Legal Support, which is actively encouraging asylum seekers to make claims in Britain. Its website declares that it 'works in solidarity with people seeking sanctuary in the UK'. Hijacked by clever lawyers It organises what it calls its Family Routes Project, offering advice and practical support to migrants in Northern France who are seeking to cross the Channel to make asylum claims in Britain — in spite of already residing in a safe country. Everyone is entitled to their views, of course, and campaign groups are free to make the case for easier migration if they really want to — just as opponents of mass migration are entitled to make their case, too. But is it really acceptable to have people sitting as judges on asylum cases when they have so openly nailed their colours to the mast on the issue? Ms Chapman is not the only judge in this position. One of her barrister colleagues, Greg O Ceallaigh, also sits as a judge on immigration tribunal cases. In March he reposted on his LinkedIn page a message from the pro-migrant charity Asylum Aid which demanded repeal of the Conservatives' Illegal Migration Act. Killer Albanian terrorist FREE to roam UK streets in human rights fiasco because he'd be hunted by mobsters if he's deported Again, perfectly reasonable people can disagree with the Conservatives' Rwanda scheme, but to take a public position on an issue on which you are supposed to be acting as an impartial judge undermines the very principles of our legal system. No one should be acting as judge and advocate at the same time. Indeed, judges are supposed to be under a duty to recuse themselves from cases in which an outside observer would conclude there is a danger they would be biased. Surely that should apply to any judge who has taken a public position on migration, or who works for any campaigning organisation which does so. If you want to campaign for open migration you should not be allowed to sit as a judge on an immigration tribunal, it is as simple as that. 4 You can imagine the outrage if an immigration judge turned out to be standing as a candidate for Reform UK, handing out leaflets saying 'Stop the boats'. They would, rightly, be suspected of harbouring a prejudice on the issue. So why is it any more acceptable to have judges who hold strong pro-migration opinions? Small wonder then that immigration tribunals so often seem to be biased in favour of migrants and against the interests of the general public. In one particularly outrageous recent case — which didn't involve either Chapman or O Ceallaigh sitting as judge — a Sri Lankan paedophile who was jailed in Britain for molesting three boys has been allowed to stay here following his release on the grounds that he might face persecution back home on account of his homosexuality. For goodness sake, does the safety of British children come into it at all? Following that outrage, the Government hastily announced that in future foreign sex offenders will not be allowed to claim refugee status. Change promised by the Government might not come to mean very much at all — especially if activist judges are still allowed to sit on migration cases. Ross Clark Critics, however, have pointed out that lawyers will still be able to make representations on behalf of foreign sex offenders, arguing that it would infringe their human rights to send them home. In other words, the change promised by the Government might not come to mean very much at all — especially if activist judges are still allowed to sit on migration cases. In another infamous recent case, it was revealed that an Albanian criminal was allowed to stay in Britain on the grounds that his son didn't like the chicken nuggets on offer in Albania. That case, at least, was overturned on appeal and sent back to a lower tribunal for reconsideration, but the 'right to a family life' has been used by many criminals to avoid deportation. The lawyers and others who drafted the European Convention on Human Rights in the 1950s would be appalled to know how their high-minded principles have been hijacked by clever lawyers working for low-lifers. Keir Starmer, of course, has a background as a human rights lawyer. He is someone who always likes to live by the book. But to judge by his recent pronouncements, the growing one-sided nature of the immigration courts is becoming too much even for him. A good start would be to root out activist judges who have formed strong left- liberal opinions on migration and who are therefore in no position to dispense balanced justice.
Telegraph
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
‘Two-tier justice' quango member attacked illegal migrant crackdown
A member of the quango behind 'two-tier justice' rules attacked the Tories' tighter restrictions on illegal immigration, The Telegraph can reveal. The Sentencing Council has drawn up guidance that comes into effect on Tuesday telling judges to consider an offender's racial, cultural and religious backgroun d. Critics have described the move as an example of 'two-tier justice' and Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, is expected to introduce emergency legislation to block the guidelines. Johanna Robinson, one of the advisers on the council, spoke out against the Illegal Migration Bill – which has since become law – when MPs voted in favour of it in April 2023. The legislation gives the Home Secretary powers to detain and deport any migrant who arrives illegally in the UK to their home country or a third country such as Rwanda. Sharing a Guardian report of the Commons vote, Ms Robinson wrote on X: 'This removes the protection of the most vulnerable people. Forced removal of people due to their method of seeking sanctuary regardless of their circumstances and abuse experienced. I am appalled.' The law was a key part of Rishi Sunak's crackdown on small boat crossings in the Channel, one of his flagship pledges while in office. The Illegal Migration Bill was not passed until July 2023 because peers tabled nine Commons amendments demanding changes on detention and deportation time limits, as well as modern slavery protections. Suella Braverman, who was the home secretary at the time, told The Telegraph: 'The Illegal Migration Act was absolutely necessary to keep the British people safe and take back control of our borders. 'Parliament should make policy, not unelected bureaucrats. These people are not asylum seekers but illegal migrants, and to suggest otherwise is a complete fantasy. 'The Sentencing Council needs to be abolished. It's out of touch and the creation of an establishment that has no idea what life in Britain is really like or how damaging illegal immigration is for the British people.' Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, called for Ms Robinson to be sacked. 'It's little wonder the council is watering down sentences for immigration offences to below the threshold for deportation when they have open-border activists like Robinson working for them,' he said. 'The Justice Secretary should use her power of appointment to sack her from the Sentencing Council immediately.' In a separate post a month before, Ms Robinson backed Gary Lineker, the BBC television presenter, after his comments about Mrs Braverman. Lineker briefly stepped back as presenter of Match of the Day after likening her rhetoric on migrants to that of 1930s Germany. Alongside a video of the television presenter being doorstepped by journalists, Ms Robinson wrote: 'Whatever your politics, this really demonstrates the potential power of speaking up and the possibilities of public support. People know your power, government be afraid.' Ms Robinson also praised the first police chief to say that their force was institutionally racist and discriminatory. In May 2023, Sir Iain Livingstone, the former chief constable of Police Scotland, said that prejudice in the force was 'rightly of great concern' after a review uncovered accounts of racism, sexism and homophobia by officers. Sir Iain told a press conference: 'It is the right thing for me to do, as chief constable, to clearly state that institutional racism, sexism, misogyny and discrimination exist.' In a post on LinkedIn, Ms Robinson said: 'Leadership requires bravery, stepping into the uncomfortable, reflection and listening to experiences other than our own and then a willingness for challenge and change. 'As Police Scotland follow this journey we have an example [of] the acceptance of the problem and responsibility… We have to address the issues, we do have the tools for change.' While Ms Robinson has a disclaimer in her X biography that reads 'views my own', her remarks will probably fuel further criticism from those who believe the council is biased.
BBC News
18-02-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Illegal Migration Act: Government appeal paused by NI court
The government's attempt to overturn a court ruling that found parts of the UK Illegal Migration Act were unlawful in Northern Ireland has been paused by act was introduced by the last government in a bid to stop people coming to the UK in small boats by giving authorities the power to send migrants to May, a High Court judge in Belfast ruled the act should not apply in Northern Ireland as it was incompatible with the post-Brexit Windsor Tuesday, the Court of Appeal was told the Labour government's new border laws to repeal the Rwanda legislation will render the case academic. However, government lawyers resisted calls for its appeal to be thrown out. Counsel for the Home Secretary claimed there could be a wider effect on asylum and immigration control within the UK if last year's ruling was not challenged. The case had been listed for a full hearing at the Court of Appeal next that hearing is to be removed from its allocated date on the orders of Appeal Court judges, including Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan."The right course is to stay this matter given the imponderables that arise," she said. "The court itself will keep this matter under review given expected legal developments in this area." Law was challenged by 16-year-old boy The previous Conservative government's Illegal Migration Act faced two separate legal challenges in Northern was opposed by the NI Human Rights Commission and also by a 16-year-old asylum seeker who is staying at a children's home in Northern Ireland. The boy, who is originally from Iran, arrived in the UK on a small boat last July after travelling to Britain alone in a bid to claim refugee status. Lawyers acting for the boy - referred to in court only as JR 295 - said he was "terrified" of being sent back to Iran, claiming he would be killed or sent to were also raised that the act would encourage unaccompanied children in his position to run away once they turn 18, to avoid removal from the Human Rights Commission argued the Illegal Migration Act breached the UK's obligations under the Windsor Framework to ensure no reduction in rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity safeguarded by the Good Friday High Court judge agreed that several elements of the act would cause a "significant" diminution of the rights of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. At the time, the then prime minister Rishi Sunak said the Belfast judge's decision would not change the government's plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda. Sunak's government has since been replaced by Labour and lawyers for both the Human Rights Commission and the boy argued the appeal should be dismissed. However, the current Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has maintained plans to appeal the May 2024 ruling. The Labour government wants to determine the impact and scope of the Windsor Framework on asylum cases in Northern Ireland."I can't think of a topic that has raised more challenging legal issues for these courts than the application of the Windsor Framework and the consequences that will apply where it overrides domestic legislation," a government barrister said. "These are some of the most groundbreaking and novel legal issues that these courts have grappled with in the last decade."
The Guardian
11-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UK to refuse citizenship to refugees who have ‘made a dangerous journey'
The Home Office has been accused of quietly blocking thousands of refugees from applying for citizenship if they arrived in the UK by small boats or hidden in vehicles. Guidance for staff assessing people who have applied for naturalisation says that, since Monday, applicants who have 'made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship'. The Refugee Council said that the move will potentially bar 71,000 people who have successfully applied for asylum from claiming UK citizenship. A leading immigration barrister has claimed that it is a breach of international law. The development will be seen as the latest evidence that Keir Starmer's government has adopted a hardline 'hostile environment' stance on asylum to fight off a poll surge by Nigel Farage's Reform UK. It follows claims from senior Tories that the government's new border security bill, which passed its second reading on Monday, will repeal parts of the Illegal Migration Act, which would stop irregular arrivals from becoming British citizens. One Labour MP has joined charities in calling for the government to reverse the guidance with immediate effect. Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, wrote on X: 'This should be changed asap. If we give someone refugee status, it can't be right to then refuse them [a] route to become a British citizen.' The changes, first disclosed by the Free Movement blog, were introduced to guidance for visa and immigration staff on Monday. Described as a 'clarification' to case worker guidance when assessing if a claimant is of 'good character', it says: 'Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.' In another new entry to the same guidance, it says: 'A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship. 'A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.' Most people who enter the UK on small boats are eventually granted refugee status. A majority of those granted refugee status eventually claim British citizenship. Seeking UK citizenship costs £1,630 an application, and there is no right of appeal against a refusal. Colin Yeo, an immigration barrister and editor of the blog, wrote on Bluesky: 'This is bad, full stop. It creates a class of person who are forever excluded from civic life no matter how long they live here. It's also a clear breach of the refugee convention.' Article 31 of the UN refugee convention says: 'The contracting states shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees.' Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the move 'flies in the face of reason. The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities. 'So many refugees over many generations have become proud hard working British citizens as doctors, entrepreneurs and other professionals. Becoming a British citizen has helped them give back to their communities and this should be celebrated, not prevented.' The Home Office was accused on Monday of 'enabling the mainstreaming of racism' after releasing footage for the first time showing people being removed from the UK. The government believes its record on migration could help retain Labour voters tempted by Farage's party. On Sunday, it released footage of immigration raids for illegal workers, prompting the MP Diane Abbott to say: 'Trying to present ourselves as Reform-lite is a big mistake.' The Home Office has been approached for comment.
Sky News
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Ministers talk about 'smashing the gangs' but real success still resembles 'stop the boats' slogan
Several floors up, in a nondescript building in central London, rows of analysts are working to make good on the government's promise to smash the gangs. At first glance, this block of offices looks more like the type of workspace that would play home to a tech startup or advertising firm. But the plasma screens pinned to the wall here are showing night-vision camera feeds from border force aircraft and maps detailing the routes of small boat crossings. This is one of the government's command centres where officials gather intelligence about the dangerous journeys made week in week out by migrants attempting to get to the UK. The information being brought together here often paints a bleak picture. On the French side, violence around coastal launch points seems to have got worse. Cars have been set on fire and local police officers followed home by those trying to facilitate crossings. The organised smuggling gangs appear to be getting increasingly cavalier with the lives of migrants too - by cramming more people on to their flimsy vessels. 'Buy one get one free' prices on crossings Sky News understands officials have even picked up social media adverts offering migrants 'buy one get one free' prices on crossings if an adult brings a child or someone with disabilities with them. "Years ago it was safer, and it was payment by results… it's more cynical now," said one source. This is explained by an increasing desperation from smugglers, as action from authorities starts to bite. But if work to "smash the gangs" is bearing fruit, the results are not feeding through to crossing numbers - with figures for 2024 higher than a year earlier. Deaths in the Channel are up too, and that's partly why the government is including laws in its new borders bill to make it a specific offence to endanger another life during a sea crossing. 'Children held over side of small boats' One Home Office official says a tactic that's been used by some on board boats is to hold a child over the side of the vessel to avoid being rescued by the authorities. There are also stories of scrambles on French beaches as desperate migrants attempt to board boats at the last minute, leading to deadly crushes in the centre of the dinghy - the area where women and children often sit. 3:25 Trafficking experts question the feasibility of gathering evidence to pursue these new crimes, while refugee groups say there's a risk that vulnerable people could inadvertently be criminalised. The Tories also claim the move is performative as existing legislation passed by them can already deal with such offences. But that's not the only echo of previous approaches to migration. While the bill being published on Thursday repeals a majority of the Conservative's controversial Illegal Migration Act, some parts are being left in place. One section keeps beefed up powers for the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to decide how long migrants can be detained for, while another retains exemptions from modern slavery protections in some circumstances. This has led to accusations of hypocrisy from human rights groups, given the critical tone adopted by many senior Labour figures towards the powers while they were in opposition. Other refugee groups seem more relaxed though and say the retained sections are relatively minor, especially given the huge tranches of Tory legislation that is repealed in the bill. That's not to say these groups are fully on side with the current approach. "The most effective way to break the smuggling gangs' grip is to stop refugees from getting into the boats in the first place, which means giving them a legal way to apply for asylum in the UK without crossing the Channel", said Enver Solomon from the Refugee Council. More safe routes doesn't appear to be on the government's radar though. Asked repeatedly about whether upping safe and legal routes was part of the discussion, the home secretary told Sky News "the priority… is tackling the criminal gangs, because if you don't, those boats will continue and that will continue to hit our border security". Back in the small boats command centre, one screen sets out the data the government will ultimately be judged on. Above a bar chart of boat arrivals, a figure - coloured green for now - shows that crossing levels are currently lower than at the same point last year.
