OMG Human Rights Lawyers Again

[Knave of Hearts]

Something interesting which I noticed about the wording of the judge's comments is that he referred to there being a "statutory bar" on the deportation of this man. That is because in 2015 the Tory government took the rules from the human trafficking convention, strengthened them, and put them into UK domestic law as part of the Modern Slavery Act. It didn't click at first what he meant by "statutory bar". What it means is that we are not following some vague rules under an international treaty. Instead we are following precise procedures under an act of the UK Parliament. That gives the Home Office much less wiggle room and is probably why this man was successful.

The rules were changed in the last day or so, to prevent similar appeals.

The judgement came just hours after the Home Office changed its policy on how to handle modern day slavery claims from English Channel migrants, to make it harder for them to resist being sent to France.

Migrant returned to France after government wins court challenge

Eritrean man arrives in Paris under the "one in, one out" deal as at least three boats carrying migrants leave beaches in France.

www.bbc.com

The successful appeal person is still here, awaiting his appeal.
The one deported to France is a different person, who's appeal was not allowed because the rules were changed. But he can still appeal, from France.

 

[MNW67]

The rules were changed in the last day or so, to prevent similar appeals.

Migrant returned to France after government wins court challenge

Eritrean man arrives in Paris under the "one in, one out" deal as at least three boats carrying migrants leave beaches in France.

www.bbc.com

The successful appeal person is still here, awaiting his appeal.
The one deported to France is a different person, who's appeal was not allowed because the rules were changed. But he can still appeal, from France.

Thanks, that's very interesting. It looks like the government have already found a way around it. Those on here who are desperate for the policy to fail must be gutted.

 

[MNW67]

And we didn't need to leave the ECHR to do it!

 

[Knave of Hearts]

Thanks, that's very interesting. It looks like the government have already found a way around it. Those on here who are desperate for the policy to fail must be gutted.

I understand that the 'slavery' claim must be presented at the beginning of the asylum claim.
If it is presented at a later date, perhaps following a failed asylum decision, it is not allowable.

Key Changes Under the Illegal Migration Act 2023

• "One-Stop" Process:
  Asylum claims, including those related to modern slavery, must be brought forward in their entirety at the beginning of the process, with minimal weight given to evidence presented later.

 

[MNW67]

Apparently, the judge confirmed in this second case that there are no human rights issues with sending people back to France.

I had posted earlier that I couldn't see any.

As mentioned above, the first case was all down to the Home Office not following the procedures under the Modern Slavery Act which was brought in 2015 by the Tories.

 

[motorbiking]

Something interesting which I noticed about the wording of the judge's comments is that he referred to there being a "statutory bar" on the deportation of this man. That is because in 2015 the Tory government took the rules from the human trafficking convention, strengthened them, and put them into UK domestic law as part of the Modern Slavery Act. It didn't click at first what he meant by "statutory bar". What it means is that we are not following some vague rules under an international treaty. Instead we are following precise procedures under an act of the UK Parliament. That gives the Home Office much less wiggle room and is probably why this man was successful in pausing his deportation.

as per page 1 of the thread.

 

[motorbiking]

Apparently, the judge confirmed in this second case that there are no human rights issues with sending people back to France.

I had posted earlier that I couldn't see any.

As mentioned above, the first case was all down to the Home Office not following the procedures under the Modern Slavery Act which was brought in 2015 by the Tories.

2022 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/section/65

 

[MNW67]

The reason the first deportation was stopped was because the judge said that the Home Office hadn't properly followed the National Referral Mechanism under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The government are now going to review the Modern Slavery Act:

Home Secretary accused of putting lives at risk over slavery comments

Shabana Mahmood hit out at migrants using anti-slavery laws to seek to avoid being deported.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[motorbiking]

The reason the first deportation was stopped was because the judge said that the Home Office hadn't properly followed the National Referral Mechanism under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The statutory bar the judge referred to is Section 65 of NABA.

 

[MNW67]

The statutory bar the judge referred to is Section 65 of NABA.

No. That only comes into effect at a much later stage. And even then, subsections 4 and 5 say that those duties can be carried out by another safe country such as France.

The reason the judge said there was a "statutory bar" is because this man had not been allowed to make further representations under the "National Referral Mechanism", which was introduced by the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Those were pretty much his exact words.

 

[motorbiking]

No. That only comes into effect at a much later stage. And even then, subsections 4 and 5 say that those duties can be carried out by another safe country such as France.

The reason the judge said there was a "statutory bar" is because this man had not been allowed to make further representations under the "National Referral Mechanism", which was introduced by the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Those were pretty much his exact words.

what act of law gives the government the power to deport?
what act of law grants Leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking?

 

[MNW67]

what act of law gives the government the power to deport?
what act of law grants Leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking?

I never play your stupid closed questions games.

Rephrase it as a grown up would.

 

[MNW67]

This is a bit more about what happened in the second court case. It all sounds very sensible:

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood then told officials to make clear that anyone who has been turned down for protection as a victim of slavery could continue their claim after being put on a flight to a safe country.

That saw the court rule there was no reason to stop Friday's removal flight. The judge, Mr Justice Sheldon, said France was a safe country abiding by the same safeguards as the UK under the European Convention of Human Rights.

He said there was no evidence that a migrant sent there would be treated unfairly - and if he were, he had a legal route to return to the UK by continuing his claim from there.

The ruling was in stark contrast to the failed £700m Rwanda plan under the last government, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the African country could not be considered to be safe at all, because of human rights abuses.

The judge then added that it was in the public interest for the flight to depart because it was part of a policy to disrupt criminal smuggling gangs who were posing a serious risk to life.

Migrant returned to France after government wins court challenge

Eritrean man arrives in Paris under the "one in, one out" deal as at least three boats carrying migrants leave beaches in France.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[motorbiking]

This is a bit more about what happened in the second court case. It all sounds very sensible:

Migrant returned to France after government wins court challenge

Eritrean man arrives in Paris under the "one in, one out" deal as at least three boats carrying migrants leave beaches in France.

www.bbc.co.uk

Isn't this about the first guy?

The second one was an Indian National. Its a bit of a concern that we are using up our quota to eject people that could easily be sent home.

 

[MNW67]

Isn't this about the first guy?

The second one was an Indian National. Its a bit of a concern that we are using up our quota to eject people that could easily be sent home.

No, the Indian guy didn't challenge his deportation.

This is the second court case. It was another Eritrean man.

I said these legal niggles would soon get ironed out.