View previous topic | View next topic

Shamima Begum case

Page 13 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next

PDR
1375953.  Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:14 pm Reply with quote

When you are granted leave to appeal a decision or a ruling the substance of that ruling is (normally) "stayed" until such time as the appeal is concluded. For at least a couple of centuries this has been accepted as a guiding principle of our legal system because it is simple common sense. It prevents (say) a death sentence being carried out while awaiting the hearing which might quosh it, or someone's property being destroyed ahead of the appeal which might grant the planning consent. It's the reason why when leave to appeal is granted at the time of conviction by a trial judge it is extremely common to grant the victim bail rather than remand.

Thus in this case the expectation should be that the removal of citizenship (the thing being appealed) should be "stayed" until such time as the appeal against it has been heard and denied. This would follow the accepted norms and what Lord Demming referred to as "the principles of natural justice". The trouble is this convention was never written down in either judgements or statute - essentially because it was deemed bleeding obvious that only the most odious people and the most vile of despots could ever think otherwise.

Sadly this principle failed with the modern Conservative Party who have a long track record of contempt for basic human rights, and an even longer record of criminal actions including multiple cases of deporting people to their deaths when judges have explicitly told them not to. This case is the same. The woman has been granted the right to appeal the removal of her citizenship. But the vile, odious and despotic crooks who are currently in power have decided to stack the deck by making it impossible for her to actually mount that appeal. She has no access to legal advice or legal representation. She is unable to conduct even the most basic of evidential review/discovery. She hasn't even been allowed to see the documents on which the action against her are based - the fundamental Habeas Corpus available to everyone else.

And why? It is claimed she is "extremely dangerous". Really? To whom? How? Are people rather that scared of this silly little girl?

I'm not that surprised that the odious Tories are again trampling on the idea of basic freedoms and human rights. They are fundamentally the party of despotism these days so wit's what you'd expect. I'm also not that surprised that the usual odious-depot fanboys on here are fully supporting them with fake facts and anti-islamist hate-mongering.

But being unsurprising doesn't make it right. It just exposes peoples' true character for all to see.

PDR

 
Alexander Howard
1375954.  Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:26 pm Reply with quote

I have frequently found myself agreeing with PDR. On this last one though, just about every single assertion was not only incorrect but bizarre. I don't even know where to start.

 
Leith
1375955.  Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:20 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
When you are granted leave to appeal a decision or a ruling the substance of that ruling is (normally) "stayed" until such time as the appeal is concluded.

That does not appear to be the case here. I'm not sure of the legal reason why - possibly the leave to appeal is in dispute. The case appears to be deep in reviews of appeals to appeals by this point.

From a layman's point of view, though, much of what I've read in the judgement strikes me as positively Kafkaesque - paragraphs 24 and 27 on the advice of the Security Service and the Home Secretaries officials to the Home Secretary, in particular.

 
PDR
1375957.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:48 am Reply with quote

Leith wrote:

From a layman's point of view, though, much of what I've read in the judgement strikes me as positively Kafkaesque - paragraphs 24 and 27 on the advice of the Security Service and the Home Secretaries officials to the Home Secretary, in particular.


Indeed - and with shades of Jarndice vs Jarndice (albeit in the criminal rather than chancery court). I seem to be in the minority in being ashamed to see my Government adopting such legal chicanery.

The Home Office is the defendant in the appeal, but is also the authority who is denying the appellant access to the hearing - a blatant conflict of interests. If it was done in china, KSA etc they'd all be out there protesting the embassies demanding sanctions...

PDR

 
barbados
1375958.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:13 am Reply with quote

Again, donning the non lawyer hat. I suspect that this is the end of the line for the case as far as the UK is concerned.
Ms Begum has, AIUI taken the only route open to her, and that was heard at the SC.
AIUI (again) The only right to appeal immigration cases apply to either a) an Intenational Protection claim - An application for refugee status. b) the revoking of refugee status on humanitarian grounds. c) a claim to remain under EU law. Or d) a human rights claim.
Looking at the judgement from the SC, it would appear that the lawyers representing Ms Begum have not followed the Human Rights path (and that is the only possible route for appeal), instead opting for a Judicial Review - suggesting that the correct procedure was not followed (one can only guess that is the reliance on the Father having Bangladeshi citizenship (he isnít a UK citizen), rather than the appeal on HR grounds.
That application for a judicial review as addressed by the SC, as it was part of the case brought, and they found against her - so she needs to find a higher court in the land that will hear a judicial review - and I can only think of one body higher that that - and the head of that organisation tends not to involve herself in what is now a political decision.
So Ms Begum will, with the appeal process now expired, have to live by the choices she made as a teenager.

 
PDR
1375960.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:09 am Reply with quote

Her appeal against the removal of her citizenship is still in process - it's only the appeal against being refused entry in order to properly conduct that appeal which has gone to the SC.

PDR

 
barbados
1375963.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:47 am Reply with quote

What are the grounds for her appeal? It says in the SC summary that there is no reference to the Human Rights aspect, and she isnít a refugee

 
PDR
1375964.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 4:00 am Reply with quote

Her appeal is against the removal of her citizenship - nothing to do with the immigration court and its restrictions. The SC judgement says nothing on that subject because it was not the matter it was being asked to rule on.

PDR

 
barbados
1375965.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 4:09 am Reply with quote

That was what the judicial review was for - and she failed in that.

 
PDR
1375969.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 4:39 am Reply with quote

No, the judicial review was over her right to enter the UK to conduct her appeal. The appeal itself is still running.

PDR

 
dr.bob
1375981.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 6:50 am Reply with quote

Just to sum up, the Supreme Court ruling has stated that:

Quote:
The appropriate response to the problem in the present case is for the appeal to be stayed until Ms Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised. That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind.


In other words, the appeal into her being stripped of UK citizenship will not proceed until she can actively be involved in it.

According to the BBC report on the case:

Quote:
Other people banned from the UK have found a way to take part in appeals from overseas - but the camp she is in won't even let her lawyers visit.


So I guess she might be able to take part in her appeal if her personal circumstances change and she finds herself in a position where she is allowed to consult with her lawyers. But if and when this would happen is impossible to predict.

 
Brock
1375983.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:08 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

So I guess she might be able to take part in her appeal if her personal circumstances change and she finds herself in a position where she is allowed to consult with her lawyers. But if and when this would happen is impossible to predict.


Can't they do it over Zoom like everyone else?

 
PDR
1375987.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:21 am Reply with quote

Apparently the wifi in the fifth bedroom of her internment camp condo is a bit dodgy...

Honestly Guy - have you paid any attention at all? She has nothing but the occasional loan of a mobile phone under closely monitored conditions which preclude any private discussions with her legal representation. She has no privacy so all these conversations are overheard by anyone in the camp who is minded to listen. Some of those who are so minded have made it very clear that if she says anything at all about what happened within ISIS she will pay with her life.

So no, she can't "just use zoom like everyone else".

Think back to your unfortunate brush with the criminal justice system. How would you have faired if you had not been allowed to attend the court, and had only a few minutes in a public place to discuss anything with your solicitor. Would it have given you a warm feeling that truth and justice would prevail?


PDR

 
Brock
1375988.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:43 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Apparently the wifi in the fifth bedroom of her internment camp condo is a bit dodgy...

Honestly Guy - have you paid any attention at all?


Not really, no. This is one topic I've kept well away from, and it was a facetious comment. Sorry.

Quote:
She has nothing but the occasional loan of a mobile phone under closely monitored conditions which preclude any private discussions with her legal representation. She has no privacy so all these conversations are overheard by anyone in the camp who is minded to listen. Some of those who are so minded have made it very clear that if she says anything at all about what happened within ISIS she will pay with her life.

So no, she can't "just use zoom like everyone else".


OK, so a genuine question then - why is the issue of leave to enter the UK even relevant, if she's being held in an internment camp that won't let her leave? What practical difference does it make either way?

Quote:
Think back to your unfortunate brush with the criminal justice system. How would you have faired if you had not been allowed to attend the court, and had only a few minutes in a public place to discuss anything with your solicitor. Would it have given you a warm feeling that truth and justice would prevail?


Well no, but then the entire process didn't give me a warm feeling that truth and justice would prevail. I'm afraid it's made me very cynical about the system.

 
crissdee
1375991.  Tue Mar 02, 2021 10:42 am Reply with quote

Brock wrote:
OK, so a genuine question then - why is the issue of leave to enter the UK even relevant, if she's being held in an internment camp that won't let her leave? What practical difference does it make either way?


This is a fair point. If they won't let her leave, arguing about where she can or can't go does rather smack of rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

Page 13 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group