Latest news with #RebeccaChapman
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.
Times
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Times
Afghan addict can stay because Taliban are too hard on drug users
An Afghan drug addict has won the right to stay in the UK after a judge ruled that the Taliban would be too hard on him if he returned. The unnamed man, who left Afghanistan when he was a child, has succeeded in an asylum application because his dependence on illegal substances made him too 'westernised'. A judge said that if the 'vulnerable' asylum seeker were to be returned to Afghanistan he would be forced to go 'cold turkey', which would affect his mental health. Judge Rebecca Chapman further ruled that he would be at risk of persecution because his drug use meant that he would be perceived as 'non-Muslim'. Afghanistan is the world's second-largest producer of opium and heroin, having recently been overtaken by
Daily Mail
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Afghan drug addict is granted asylum in the UK - after winning human rights claim as a judge rules he would face persecution by the Taliban
An Afghan drug addict has won his asylum bid to stay on British shores after a judge ruled he would face persecution by the Taliban. The unnamed man, who left the country when he was nine, won his human rights claim because his dependence on substances made him too 'westernised'. The judge ruled he would be at risk of persecution due to his drug issues being perceived as 'non-Muslim', which would go against societal norms. This is despite evidence that Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium, with 10 per cent of the population being addicts. If the 'vulnerable' asylum seeker were to return to the country, he would be forced to go 'cold turkey' without access to methadone, which would impact his mental health, the judge added. She granted him asylum, further ruling his history of drug addiction meant he would ultimately be at risk of 'inhuman and degrading' treatment if he were to return. The man, who is thought to be 39 years old, first applied for asylum in 2010 but originally claimed to be from Iran, the Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard. He did so because if he were to be deported, it would it would be safer for him to return to Iran rather than his home country, the tribunal was told. The judge was told he was a 'vulnerable' individual who suffered both mental health issues and had a long-term drug addiction. It was also heard he has lived a 'transient lifestyle' while in the UK and has 'difficult' relationships with his family members. As well as this, the asylum seeker's representatives said due to his issues, he would likely be perceived as 'westernised' in Afghanistan. Official guidance read by the judges said that people perceived to be westernised may be seen as 'non-Afghani' or 'non-Muslim'. This could also 'overlap with transgressing societal norms', according to the official advice. An asylum seeker's 'mode of dress and history of drug addiction should be considered within this context', the guidance added. His lawyers argued he has been outside the country for many years and has transgressed moral and religious codes - meaning he would be seen as non-Muslim. It was contended that the man would be subjected to a lack of health care support if returned to his native country. They also further noted that Afghanistan remains one of the world's 'worst humanitarian crises and economic challenges'. Ruling the unnamed man as an Afghan not Iranian, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Rebecca Chapman said he 'fear[ed]' returning to the country having been absent from Afghanistan for three decades. She referred to his statement, in which he said he was 'not a very religious person' and does not fast or pray regularly. It was heard the man, who has been diagnosed with both PTSD and depression, 'actively opposes the views of the Taliban'. The man, who is thought to be 39 years old, first applied for asylum in 2010 but originally claimed to be from Iran as it would be safer for him to be deported there rather than his home country, the tribunal was told Referring to evidence on how the militant group treat drug addicts, she said thousands were 'rounded up, beaten and imprisoned' whilst also being forced 'to go cold turkey without access to methadone or counselling'. The judgement also referred to an Al Jazeera report, which said that the 'physical abuse and imprisonment' of drug addicts by the terrorist organisation is 'systemic and indiscriminate'. It was heard that since the Taliban takeover in 2021, many of the drug treatment centres in the country have been closed down. The tribunal also said the country is the world's leading producer of opium, with approximately 10 per cent of the population being addicts. Ruling the man could remain in the UK, the judge said: 'I find there is a reasonable likelihood that the [asylum seeker] would be unable to access treatment for his drug addiction and that there is a reasonable likelihood that he could be imprisoned and forced to go cold turkey which would inevitably result in a deterioration in his mental health and amount to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to article 3 of ECHR. 'Given the [asylum seeker's] attitude towards the Taliban, lack of strict adherence to Islam, his mode of dress, history of drug addiction and 30 year absence from the country, I find in light of the background evidence that [he] would be at risk of harm if returned to Afghanistan. 'I find that there is a reasonable likelihood that the [asylum seeker] would be subjected to persecution by the Taliban on account of his individual characteristics which would place him within a particular social group.'
Telegraph
29-04-2025
- Telegraph
Afghan drug user allowed to stay in UK because Taliban is harsh on addicts
A drug user from Afghanistan has won his claim to stay in the UK after a judge ruled that the Taliban treated addicts too harshly. The man, who left the country when he was a child, was successful in his appeal on the grounds that his mental health and addiction issues, along with the likelihood of him being perceived as 'Westernised', put him at risk of harm from the regime. Judge Rebecca Chapman said that if the 'vulnerable' asylum seeker was returned to Afghanistan, he 'could be imprisoned and forced to go cold turkey', without access to methadone, 'which would inevitably result in a deterioration' of his mental health. She further ruled he would be at risk of persecution, in breach of his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), because 'persons perceived to be Westernised may be seen as non-Afghani or non-Muslim and that profile might overlap with transgressing societal norms'. The judge's comments came despite her hearing evidence that Afghanistan was the world's leading producer of opium, with 10 per cent of its population estimated to be addicts. But she ruled that the man's history of drug addiction meant he would ultimately be at risk of 'inhuman and degrading' treatment, in breach of article three of the ECHR if he were to return to the country, and so granted him asylum. 'Vulnerable' man with 'transient' lifestyle The upper immigration tribunal was told the man, thought to be 39 years old, first applied for asylum in 2010, having arrived in the UK aged nine. He was described as 'vulnerable' with a long-term drug addiction and a 'transient' lifestyle, and was also said to have 'difficult' relationships with his family members. His lawyers said that owing to his various issues, he was likely to be perceived as 'Westernised' in Afghanistan and having transgressed moral and religious codes, which meant he would be seen as non-Muslim. They said he was 'not a very religious person', did not fast or pray regularly and actively opposed the views of the Taliban. The judge noted that the man, who had been diagnosed with PTSD and depression, would face a regime where drug addicts were 'rounded up, beaten and imprisoned where they were forced to go cold turkey without access to methadone or counselling'. Since the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan in 2021, many of the country's drug treatment centres have been closed down.
Telegraph
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Lesbian couple win asylum claim because Albania is ‘homophobic'
An Albanian lesbian couple have won an asylum claim to stay in Britain after successfully arguing that people in their home country are homophobic. Lawyers representing the women, who said they had been targeted after being spotted kissing on the street, said that although being gay was no longer illegal in the Balkan state the 'populace' of the country is still 'patriarchal, conservative and male-dominated'. The Home Office argued that what happened to the women in their home towns should 'not be a reflection of what the whole of Albania looks like' as even in 'tolerant' countries like the UK, there are hate crimes. But this argument was rejected by a judge who has now ruled the women can stay on human rights grounds, as they are 'at risk of potential discrimination' if they go back. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where failed asylum seekers or convicted foreign criminals have attempted to halt their deportations, often by claiming breaches of their human rights. There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour's efforts to fast-track removal of illegal migrants. The upper immigration tribunal heard that the lesbian couple were also considered trafficking victims because they had been 'abducted by masked men in their home town, sexually assaulted by multiple men and subjected to physical and verbal abuse on account of their sexual orientation '. The women said that this happened after they were 'observed kissing by their traffickers which resulted in them being captured and detained and assaulted'. Lawyers representing the couple said while their relationship 'is not outlawed', it is 'the view of the populace that is important'. The lawyers argued that there was a 'causal link' between their sexual orientation and their relationship, and the fact that they were trafficked. It was said that victims of trafficking in Albania are 'blamed and stigmatised' which may hinder their chances of finding employment. They said the women had 'no confidence' in the system which exists in the country and 'it is difficult to see how they could be safely returned to Albania '. The lawyers said that while the women were 'highly qualified' and 'educated', they have no connection to their families and are at risk of suicide as a result of what they experienced in Albania. But, lawyers representing the Home Office argued that it is 'not against the law in Albania to be gay and there are measures to protect individuals who belong to these communities to reach out to the police'. They said the women 'are able to work, have some form of education and can mitigate being trafficked as support and medication would be there for them'. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Rebecca Chapman referred to Albanian country policy information which said it is a 'patriarchal, conservative society in which homophobic attitudes still exist, particularly in rural areas'. It was said that members of the LGBT+ community face difficulties accessing education, employment, housing, healthcare and goods and services due to 'prevailing negative attitudes' in society. Upholding their asylum claim, the judge said the women could not be expected to relocate elsewhere in Albania as it is a small country which is 'slightly larger than Wales with a population of only 2.8-3 million people'. Judge Chapman said: 'Considering all the factors holistically I find that there is a real risk that the [women] would be subjected to discriminatory measures on account of being former victims of trafficking and lesbians in a same-sex relationship. I find that they would be at risk of potential discrimination by both state and non-state actors.' The judge continued: 'I find that the [women] would be at risk of persecution from the same men who subjected them to previous persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation if they returned to their home area. 'Both [women] are from the same area of Shkoder in Northern Albania, which is a part of the country with traditional, patriarchal views. They remain young women. 'I find the fact that they are in a same-sex relationship would potentially exacerbate the risk of persecution for that reason.' Homosexual activity was decriminalised in Albania in 1995. In 2010, Albania adopted a non-discrimination law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. While same-sex relationships are legal, same-sex marriage or civil unions are not recognised in Albania.
