Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who’ll be the Judge? Legitimately elected governments are not
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who’ll be the Judge? Legitimately elected governments are not excused the obligation to comply with the law
On 11 February, following a court ruling, some Jamaican nationals convicted of serious crimes were not put on their scheduled deportation flight because they had not received legal advice about their deportation. This ruling does not mean that this group will be entitled to stay in the UK. Nor does it mean that the government will not be able to proceed with the deportations. What it does mean is that there will be a pause to allow them to obtain legal advice. To judge by the fury of Ministers, one would have thought that the courts had ordered the government to provide these criminals free Xmas holidays in Mustique for the rest of their lives. What possible objection could there be to giving criminals the opportunity to obtain legal advice? Some might, in fact, be British nationals or have some other claim to prevent deportation. If that claim was well-founded under our laws, surely the government would not wish to risk breaking the law?
Comments
The Institute for Policy Integrity tracks the outcomes of litigation over the Trump administration’s use of agencies to deregulate as well as to implement its other policy priorities. This Roundup includes litigation over agency actions such as regulations, guidance documents, and agency memoranda.
An outcome is considered unsuccessful for the Trump administration if (1) a court ruled against the agency or (2) the relevant agency withdrew the action after being sued...
Overall record is 4 Successful, 66 Unsuccessful.
https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup
It is possible that US alt-right annoyance at courts is making its way across the Atlantic. That is a 95 per cent loss rate.
Yes, courts should operate to curb abuse of power by government but if a small number of unelected, unaccountable judges continue to determine wider public policy, putting them at odds with elected decision-makers, our democracy cannot be said to be representative. Parliament’s legitimacy is unrivalled and the reason why we must take back control, not just from the EU, but from the judiciary.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/01/suella-braverman-people-we-elect-must-take-back-control-from-people-we-dont-who-include-the-judges.html
https://mobile.twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228843657039577088
Meanwhile we have police time being wasted on ‘non-crime’ Twitter spats and 10% of all magistrates’ court cases Involve TV licences.
The net result is a loss of public trust in the whole system.
Think I need a coffee before I tackle this one..
It’s a good piece, as usual by Ms @Cyclefree, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.
I think the general public have lost confidence that the justice system is fair, and think the balance of ‘human rights’ legislation cares more about the rights of perpetrators than victims of crime. They also don’t understand why foreigners sent to prison don’t go straight from there to the airport, as happens in most other countries.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/15/national/eight-coronavirus-infections-confirmed-tokyo-japan-sees-spate-domestic-transmissions/#.XkjYThpRWhA
Nowhere else can contain people the way the Chinese have done, if the virus is now spreading rapidly outside of China then it could be too late already to prevent a worldwide pandemic, given the incubation time.
This particularly applies to immigration and repatriation. For example, the average person thinks it's madness that once someone sets foot on British soil and claims asylum (often quite deliberately with no documents) they're basically home and dry. It's very hard to deport them and a very large number of these claims succeed. And for those that look like they won't many abscond.
They succeed because they either have good enough grounds for it (there are plenty of unpleasant and intolerant places in the world) or because the onus is on the law to prove where they are from and that the place they are sent back to is safe to be deported to.
The result (because, quite rightly, we can't let people drown or die) is that there is a taxi service operating in the English Channel as well as the Med now where if you make it 50%+ one yard across the halfway line then the Royal Navy or coastguard will transit you to Blighty. The BBC often reports this as "Twenty eight migrants including children" and when you read it you see it's just two children and two women and the rest are young healthy men.
There is something seriously wrong with our asylum, immigration and rights system. It encourages people trafficking and for the healthiest and wealthiest with means (young men) to get here at great risk to themselves whilst the most vulnerable and (legitimately) needy are stranded at home. I don't blame them. They want a better life. And in their shoes, wouldn't you risk it too? The rewards are immense. But it is conniving, disingenuous, unfair and aiding a vast international criminal enterprise.
A far better solution would be for the UK to set an annual quota of refugees from disaster or conflict areas it is willing to admit and set up an application and appeals station near those zones, or at our embassies. Genuine asylum seekers can then be assessed, given protection and transited here.
By the same token - by law - not a single transit of the English channel can ever succeed. That's the only way to stop them. All crossings should be intercepted and all occupants always returned to their port of origin (they've always come from a safe country in Europe too) and told to properly apply by the usual process if they wish to be considered for asylum in the UK.
Getting tired of storms.
A problem for the judiciary is that the hubris of Hale in getting carried away with her 'Spiderwoman takes down the Hulk nonsense' makes her, and her judgement, appear less than objective, giving some cover to the Government.
The lack of judgement and total self-interest of the PM means he'll probably be unrestrained by obstacles such as foresight or insight when it comes to decision-making on this. And everything else.
Most important judge story of the week and is ignored.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/15/new-attorney-general-suella-braverman-in-controversial-buddhist-sect
Something the likes of @HYUFD do not appreciate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
How very novel.
https://twitter.com/joanna__hardy/status/1228964096625737728?s=21
Spurs Villa the draw at 14/5 worth a consideration.
https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1228966858105278464?s=21
Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
As a Leave voter who rejoined Labour in December 2019, I am not interested in mulling over the history of the past few years. Brexit is done and the issues in play in 2024 will be very different.
The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1228944905441103878?s=19
I don’t think it made a difference to the overall result in the end: Corbyn was too toxic. I do think it increased the Tory majority pretty significantly.
We have yet to come to terms with its implications, and formulate appropriate etiquette and barriers, but we cannot un invent it.
The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.
The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.
I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
Who would have actually believed Labour wanted to implement Brexit, even without the 2nd ref pledge?
The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !
The fence sitting was the only option .
And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.
😀
The Lib Dems are all bark and no bite. How many Labour seats were at risk of falling to the Lib Dems - it was the Tories who took Labour seats not the Lib Dems.
1. Many human rights cases are brought by people who are not criminals but by the forgotten and unloved, such as the case being brought by those with learning disabilities who are treated appallingly. They do not get much attention. So it is easy for you to say “oh the public is fed up with criminals taking the piss”. The reality is that the majority are not criminals taking the piss but people who are desperate and resorting to the courts because it is their last resort.
2. Even criminals should have resort to the law. This may be unpopular but in a civilised society it is essential. Now there are certainly improvements which can be made in stopping endless hopeless appeals etc but the reason I quoted the figures for 2018 is to show that the overwhelming majority of claims for JR are turned down. Hence my question as to whether there is a real problem here.
2. The public has lost trust in the police and the criminal justice system. See here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/failing-police-rumbled-by-weary-public-7lwvxrdr6. But that is as a result of prolonged and significant under-investment in and cuts to all aspects of the criminal justice system: police, courts, legal aid, forensic services, prisons, probation services etc. One recent example: an incident of alleged GBH in October 2017 is not going to go to trial until spring 2021.
Address these issues and the issues I have identified in relation to the police (see here -https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/17/a-toxic-culture/j) and you would do far more to improve our justice system and start the process of restoring trust than attacking the ability of the citizen to hold the government to account via judicial review.
This is a world away from a hate mob or bullying.