Yet more Tory sleaze….

[icowden]

There's a bit from a court case where the Secretary of State tried to block an EU National from obtaining citizenship on appeal.

View: https://twitter.com/jonkingh/status/1617829007139143681?s=20

This is an appeal brought by the Secretary of State, yet her representative was not in a position to shed light on the meaning of the provision with reference to which the appeal was allowed. On behalf of the Secretary of State, Mr Melvin submitted that the appellant did not meet the requirements of the rules because she did not hold a 'relevant document' before the end of the transition period and cited the decision in Celik (EU Exit; marriage; human rights) [2002] UKUT 220 (IAC). When asked to explain the meaning and effect of paragraph (b)(ii)(bb)(aaa) he simply repeated that Appendix EU required the appellant to hold a relevant document as a durable partner. As set out below, there may be good reason why the Secretary of State's representatives might struggle to assist. However, it is reasonable for the Upper Tribunal to expect the Secretary of State, as represented in court, to be able to explain the meaning and effect of her own rules.

It makes the mind boggle.

 

[icowden]

I note that the Home Office refuses to provide the form in anything other than English but insist that any supporting documents from the applicant will not be accepted if they are in another language; the applicant is responsible for obtaining a translation. This is a specialist skill and not always cheap or easy to do within the stipulated 20 day time limit.

It's almost like they want them to fail...

 

[C R]

I note that the Home Office refuses to provide the form in anything other than English but insist that any supporting documents from the applicant will not be accepted if they are in another language; the applicant is responsible for obtaining a translation. This is a specialist skill and not always cheap or easy to do within the stipulated 20 day time limit.

And suggesting (in English) to an applicant who doesn’t understand English that they can use a machine translator to read and fully comprehend the questionnaire is ridiculous. Also, machine translations are sloppy and should never be relied upon, especially in a crucial legal situation.

I am astonished at the ability of this lot to outdo their lack of humanity at every turn.

 

[Beebo]

I'm starting to think that Raab should have his own thread, but here he is - grandstanding again:-


Yes, a basic principle of British Justice is apparently to be able to spit in the face of the guilty. This one had passed me by.
According to the HM Inspectorate of Probation:-

Or the House of Lords:-


Of course it's great to see him leaping into action to deal with the most important things first such as collapsing courtrooms, the shortage of Judges and court sittings, the huge backlog in processing cases and the relative poverty of Criminal Barristers which means that defendants go unrepresented wasting Court time.

Go Dom!!

Not a fan of Raab. But I do agree that if the guilty party refuses to turn up for sentencing and to hear victim statements, then this should add to the punishment.

 

[winjim]

Not a fan of Raab. But I do agree that if the guilty party refuses to turn up for sentencing and to hear victim statements, then this should add to the punishment.

I feel the opposite, that attending sentencing and listening to the victims should afford a degree of mitigation. Same thing in reverse really.

The punishment is deprivation of liberty. We removed the aspect of public humiliation from our criminal system.

 

[BoldonLad]

Asylum-seekers have now been told they have 20days to fill in 11 page questionnaires, to 'speed up' the assessment process. Here's an interesting technical thread from an expert on the subject (who's known to some of us).

View: https://twitter.com/Julian_Norman1/status/1628880923281223682

Not agreeing with it, but, I thought it was only "some" Asylum seekers?, depending on Country of origin.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Not agreeing with it, but, I thought it was only "some" Asylum seekers?, depending on Country of origin.

‘Some’ is currently 12,000 applicants.

 

[Bromptonaut]

‘Some’ is currently 12,000 applicants.

If I thought this was an honest way of clearing 'low hanging fruit' from places that are self evidently life threateningly dangerous then I'd applaud it.

But the Tories are in power and the Home Secretary is Suella Braverman....

 

[BoldonLad]

‘Some’ is currently 12,000 applicants.

Yes, I know, 12,000 out of 140,000+ is “some” I believe.

I will repeat, not saying I agree with it.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Yes, I know, 12,000 out of 140,000+ is “some” I believe.

I will repeat, not saying I agree with it.

12,000 is a lot of people needing specialist assistance in a tight timeframe.

Knowing this government, I wouldn’t put it past them to extend this to more, if not all, applicants.

 

[BoldonLad]

12,000 is a lot of people needing specialist assistance in a tight timeframe.

Knowing this government, I wouldn’t put it past them to extend this to more, if not all, applicants.

Wouldn’t disagree with that, but, at present, it is still “some” asylum seekers.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Wouldn’t disagree with that, but, at present, it is still “some” asylum seekers.

I think putting a number on it is more honest, and helpful.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think putting a number on it is more honest, and helpful.

There was a number quoted.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

There was a number quoted.

Not in your post that I first responded to 👇

Not agreeing with it, but, I thought it was only "some" Asylum seekers?, depending on Country of origin.

 

[BoldonLad]

Not in your post that I first responded to 👇

You quoted a number in your response.