More deaths in the channel.

[denso13]

Wrong again

Nope. Did you not read your "case law"?

As per your link,

"As with many border control policies, there is a distinct gap between the legislation and its enforcement in practice. The CPS has accepted that imprisoning c. 50,000 people a year under Section 24 - as the NABA enables - would not be in the public interest. Instead, for now, charges are only brought against cases with ‘aggravating factors’."

 

[carmanmemoranda]

About 185 according to the Oxford article posted by motorbiking.
Out of the 50,000 asylum seekers about 185 have been prosecuted, which is why I suggested there must have been some other aggravating factor to motivate the prosecution.



What is worse, if those prosecuted do not have some aggravating factor to be prosecuted, they are randomly selected for prosecution which makes the process inherently unfair and discriminatory.

I think MB is making some very wild claims.

Rnli hotspot.

Rnli taxi service

Arrivals detained in custody.

Arrivals prosecuted


In fairness. He hasn't claimed any removed. Which is the only bit that will deter others.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Nope. Did you not read your "case law"?

As per your link,

"As with many border control policies, there is a distinct gap between the legislation and its enforcement in practice. The CPS has accepted that imprisoning c. 50,000 people a year under Section 24 - as the NABA enables - would not be in the public interest. Instead, for now, charges are only brought against cases with ‘aggravating factors’."

If there were not "aggravating factors" then the application of the law would be classed as discriminatory and random.

If the prosecutions were processed normally it would fail under its own implementation.
So clearly not sensible law.

 

[Roy Bloom]

I think MB is making some very wild claims.

Of course his claims are motivated by his ideological beliefs, and not based on pragmatism.

 

[denso13]

So you do have an idea of how many have been prosecuted?

"Mr Thomas KC said that, since NABA 2022 came into force on 28 June 2022, an estimated 29,400 migrants had arrived on small boats, of whom an estimated 78 had been charged with an offence under section 24(D1). The Prosecution did not dispute that these figures were broadly correct."

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Preparatory-hearing-Small-Boats-cases-rulings-21Dec22-final-v.pdf

 

[Diver Fred]

I've seen in another forum a question/thought - why isn't the UN looking to sort out the source of the problem rather than being less than helpful to the countries that are receiving all the migrants.

 

[denso13]

Not many. Two reasons are that you were facilitating entry of others or you are returning after a previous entry refusal.

Wrong again

"In practice, this means two groups of arrivals are charged (although not systematically). First are people who have re-entered the UK, or whose fingerprints are already registered due to a deportation order or entry ban. Reasons for re-entry vary, but include victims of trafficking (forcibly taken back out of the UK), and those who, in desperation, leave to search for missing family members. These people are charged with Section 24 (‘illegal entry’). They are identified through fingerprint checks that take place in the Manston short-term holding facility shortly after arrival.

The second group are people where there is evidence that they had their ‘hand on the tiller of the dinghy’, however temporarily: the alleged ‘pilot’ or ‘captain’. This evidence is most often photographic, from drones or Border Force officers with long-lens cameras on vessels in the Channel.

Evidence from courtwatching: documenting the criminalisation of people seeking asylum in the UK

blogs.law.ox.ac.uk

 

[gant]

I've seen in another forum a question/thought - why isn't the UN looking to sort out the source of the problem rather than being less than helpful to the countries that are receiving all the migrants.

I think you know the answer to that one.

 

[motorbiking]

Nope. Did you not read your "case law"?

As per your link,

"As with many border control policies, there is a distinct gap between the legislation and its enforcement in practice. The CPS has accepted that imprisoning c. 50,000 people a year under Section 24 - as the NABA enables - would not be in the public interest. Instead, for now, charges are only brought against cases with ‘aggravating factors’."

Do you understand the bits that are commentary and judgement?

Here is a tip, the judgement is usually at the end.

The CPS are focusing on those who have been spotted steering the boat, usually via drone footage. The idea is word gets out, that if you steer the boat, you are going to jail. It's about efficient deterrent. A bit like not prosecuting minor drug offences. Nothing in this strategy prevents any adult on a small boat from being prosecuted. Sometimes there isn't enough to go for S25, so they use S24 as an alternative. They are all breaking UK law, by attempting to arrive without leave.

 

[denso13]

Here is a tip, the judgement is usually at the end.

Aw fanks.

 

[denso13]

The CPS are focusing on those who have been spotted steering the boat, usually via drone footage.

Almost. But you said I was wrong.

"In practice, this means two groups of arrivals are charged (although not systematically). First are people who have re-entered the UK, or whose fingerprints are already registered due to a deportation order or entry ban. Reasons for re-entry vary, but include victims of trafficking (forcibly taken back out of the UK), and those who, in desperation, leave to search for missing family members. These people are charged with Section 24 (‘illegal entry’). They are identified through fingerprint checks that take place in the Manston short-term holding facility shortly after arrival.

The second group are people where there is evidence that they had their ‘hand on the tiller of the dinghy’, however temporarily: the alleged ‘pilot’ or ‘captain’. This evidence is most often photographic, from drones or Border Force officers with long-lens cameras on vessels in the Channel.

 

[motorbiking]

You were wrong.

You said you if you were guilty of facilitation you would be convicted under s24. S24 is illegal entry, S25 is facilitation. Would you like a link, so you can read it.

 

[denso13]

You said you if you were guilty of facilitation you would be convicted under s24

No I wasn't. You are being silly now.

It is about "illegal" immigration and the number of prosecutions. You are restricting it to s24, not me.

 

[denso13]

Would you like a link, so you can read it.

A link of me saying exactly that? Yes.

 

[motorbiking]

I think MB is making some very wild claims.

Rnli hotspot.

Rnli taxi service

Arrivals detained in custody.

Arrivals prosecuted


In fairness. He hasn't claimed any removed. Which is the only bit that will deter others.

these are all in your head.

There is a hotspot in the channel and it's the RNLIs most expensive vessels being regularly tasked. These boats cost 5-10x more to buy and operate than those operating in the thames. If you read the link I posted you can see how many lives are being saved by each vessel type. E class boats are only deployed in the thames, so it's easy to see their costs and lives saved. The all weather Shannons, tamar etc. operate off-shore - 20% of lives saved are illegals costing £30-36m - the RNLI are short £11m. costs up, donations down, hostility growing - Time to reconsider before they have serious financial problems.

I said all are illegal immigrants not all are arrested. The current strategy is to prosecute those suspected of piloting the boat. if there is evidence to convict they are charged withs s25, if not s24. All are guilty of s24 offence - illegal entry.