UK to Rwanda asylum plan ruled unlawful

[denso13]

I also read this some time ago,

Further reading here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022018320954177?download=true&ved=2ahUKEwjXke68m82AAxWvW0EAHb3ODtsQFnoECCkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3rKn-nL-BHGrGZPjDrRlB8

In short: it is not entirely unprecedented for the Crown court judgement to be a precedent. But it is not common and there is precedent for them being thrown out by the court of appeal.

The author says,

"The binding authority of substantive decisions made by the Crown Court in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction is often assumed to be negligible. In 2013, the Court of Appeal appeared to confirm the correctness of that assumption."

His conclusions argue that this should be clarified,

"In summary, if there should be established a reasonably satisfactory process to facilitate the systematic and public dissemination (electronic or otherwise) of reasoned substantive decisions made in the exercise of the Crown Court’s criminal jurisdiction, it is suggested that those decisions, whether made at first instance or on appeal, should be recognised to have the following effect under the doctrine of stare decisis:"

For now, that's case law.

 

[motorbiking]

No it’s an academic article and it argues for better information for magistrates so that they do not error in ignoring higher courts.

A magistrate relies on the lawyers in the room to tell them, usually the clerk of the court. It’s not a fool proof model particularly when many defend themselves.

 

[motorbiking]

And to get back on track. It’s completely relevant because our immigration laws impact asylum seekers. They do not have a get out of jail card by claiming asylum.

 

[denso13]

No it’s an academic article

No what?

In 2013 the Court of Appeal confirmed the binding authority of substantive decisions made by the Crown Court is negligible. Take it up with them.

[2013] EWCA Crim 818; [2014] 1 WLR 591

 

[denso13]

It’s completely relevant

Which part of the judgement says anything about applying for asylum in any particular country?

 

[motorbiking]

The argument being presented was that they can choose where to claim asylum and they are not illegal immigrants, if they choose to come here.

It’s incorrect as shown by those being prosecuted.

 

[denso13]

The argument being presented was that they can choose where to claim asylum and they are not illegal immigrants, if they choose to come here.

It’s incorrect as shown by those being prosecuted.

The judgement was about the interpretation of certain parts of immigration law only. Two charges of facilitation and two of "attempted arrival". Attempted because they were picked up offshore.

 

[Odds]

Y'know. I just read three pages of this argument...



...and still have no idea what's going on.

Is the plan lawful, or not?

 

[JohnD]

fibs

Like the sort of person who claims his opinion is derived from a press release?

That actually never existed?

Who bases his assertions on vague and unsupported chit-chat?

 

[noseall]

Like the sort of person who claims his opinion is derived from a press release?

That actually never existed?

Who bases his assertions on vague and unsupported chit-chat?

MBK is not renowned for his legal nous. He'll be telling us it's 'case law' next.

 

[motorbiking]

Its good to see you two joining in and contributing to the debate for a change... oh no wait.

 

[nwgs]

Y'know. I just read three pages of this argument...



...and still have no idea what's going on.

Is the plan lawful, or not?

It’s just an echo chamber for nose and John.

 

[denso13]

Is the plan lawful, or not?

Of course it might be....

 

[Odds]

Of course it might be....

Is that maybe a definitely?

 

[denso13]

Is that maybe a definitely?

Certainly one or the other.