Suella Braverman

SC ruling July 1999 (R v Uxbridge) - Immigration and Asylum Act - passed in November 1999. Not 9 years. The sec 31 defences was considered an 11th hour amendment widely reported as such in the legal press.
This judgement, in 1999, made it obvious and unambiguous that an immediate application for asylum is not required.
24. On the previous page, however, appears this: "A person crossing the frontier illegally may have reasons for not giving himself up at the nearest frontier control point or to a local authority in the border zone. If he succeeds in finding his way to the capital or another major city and presents himself to the authorities there he must be deemed to have complied with the requirement and the same ought to apply if he was unsuccessful but could show that such was his intention."
25. If Mr Adimi’s intention was to claim asylum within a short time of his arrival even had he successfully secured entry on his false documents, then I would not think it right to regard him as having breached this condition.
The judgement continues by stating that referral to the Home office is required:
31. The applicants submit that in the case of all refugees apprehended with false documents, whether on entry or in transit, there should be no prosecution rising out of the possession or presentation of such papers until the Secretary of State has determined the asylum claim

Now the other document to which you refer, was enacted in 2018
After 23 years UNHCR, don't appear to share your view . They have little power other than the odd press statement and academic report. https://www.unhcr.org/5a1b53607.pdf. If they wished to take action against the UK, they would need a resolution, which of course would need to be backed by all the states exercising similar immigration controls.

So wrong again

The Code for Crown Prosecutors​

26 October 2018|Publication
Now you're either struggling to read the dates correctly, or you are wilfully misrepresenting the evidence. The 2018 Code was issued by a different Government, a right wing anti-migrant Government.

The UNHCR is laid down, and signatories signed it understanding its contents. If a signatory passes legislation that undermines that UNHCR, the domestic law has little effect, and is intended only for domestic consumption.

As far as the jurisdiction of the UNHCR is concerned, all refugees have a right of appeal to the UNHCR.
The decision is made by a UNHCR officer. See bottom of post.

1669457678048.png

If the UNHCR can not consider an appeal on domestic law which is outside the scop of the UNHCR, then the refugees have a right of appeal to the ECHR.

1669457942348.png


Moreover, the UNHCR operates a 'watching brief' over states RSD determination.
Refugee Status Determination, or RSD, is the legal or administrative process by which governments or UNHCR determine whether a person seeking international protection is considered a refugee under international, regional or national law. RSD is often a vital process in helping refugees realize their rights under international law.
States have the primary responsibility to conduct RSD, however, UNHCR may conduct RSD under its mandate when a state is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or does not have a fair and efficient national asylum procedure in place.
UNHCR works closely with states to support and capacitate them in taking over increased responsibility for RSD and with improving their RSD systems
 
Sponsored Links
Collaboration could also be a collective approach to restrict access. We should not start with the assumption the door is open.
Nothing wrong with restricting access. But it needs a system

We don't appear to have 1, or want 1. How much money are we wasting with our current approach? Who does it benefit ? All I can see is some people getting angry, and they all appear to be strong supporters of the very Government that promised, YEARS ago, to sort the problem.

What can be concluded from that ? Let's see the answers please
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top