UK to Rwanda asylum plan ruled unlawful

[motorbiking]

I did chuckle at "decided case law" (in a County Court preparatory hearing).

Perhaps you should read it, you appear confused.

 

[Roy Bloom]

and yet you bring nothing to the table apart from a misunderstanding of immigration law.

Do you have any thoughts on what the government should do, beyond fix it and fix it faster?

Efficient processing of asylum application would be a big help. But the government has reduced funding for the process, which has resulted in it grinding to a halt.

At the same time the government has shifted the responsibility of supporting asylum seekers onto local authority.
Undocumented immigrants are now refused all and any financial suport from the government with the NRPF (No recourse to public funds)

"People with NRPF are at high risk of homelessness and destitution because they cannot access mainstream housing, welfare benefits and employment.

The following categories of people will also have no recourse to public funds:

• Visa overstayers
• asylum seekers
• ‘appeal rights exhausted’ (ARE) asylum seekers."

What No Recourse to Public Funds means

What it means when someone has no recourse to public funds and who is affected.

www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk

This leads to rough sleeping and crime caused by poverty and hunger.
The Tory government policy of Hostile Environment has increased crime and poverty.

But still the channel crossings are a fraction of the visa overtayers.
But that is the dog whistle policies advocated by a desparate government.

 

[denso13]

Perhaps you should read it, you appear confused.

Oh I did. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[motorbiking]

You claim it was a county court preparatory hearing. I'm assuming you missed the bit where it said "crown court". I'm guessing you also weren't aware that they were convicted by the crown court, went to appeal and lost. Hence it's a decided case.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/R-v-Mohamed-Others-2023-EWCA-Crim-211.pdf

I'll save you the bother of reading it.

some illegal immigrants attempt to arrive in the UK via small boat to claim asylum. They were intercepted, prosecuted, convicted, appealed and the appeal says...

In the result, none of the grounds of appeal has any merit. We dismiss the appeals and uphold the judge’s rulings.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Perhaps you should read it, you appear confused.

Perhaps you should read it
Normally, many, and sometimes all, of the migrants claim asylum whenthey land.
5. It would not be practicable to charge and then to proceed with criminal proceedingsagainst all of the migrants who cross the Channel in small boats.
From the judgement.

But 6 months before the government said they wouldn't prosecute those who steer boats.

Migrants who steer dinghies across English Channel to claim asylum will no longer be prosecuted​

New guidance comes after the government unveils new bill that would make it easier to prosecute asylum seekers

Migrants who steer dinghies across English Channel to claim asylum will no longer be prosecuted

New guidance comes after the government unveils new bill that would make it easier to prosecute asylum seekers

www.independent.co.uk

​

 

[motorbiking]

It's important to understand what you are reading.. maybe give it another go? check also the dates vs your news article.
Did they all get prosecuted, convicted and was that conviction upheld?:

A: yes
B: no it really is yes.

 

[denso13]

I'm assuming you missed the bit where it said "crown court".

No I didn't. I made a mistake in writing it down.

I' guessing you also weren't aware that they were convicted by the crown court, went to appeal and lost.

Yes, it was to do with "facilitation" and "steering boats". Nothing to to with,

There is no requirement, no legislation, no rules that says you must apply in any particular country.

That's the point.

 

[denso13]

some illegal immigrants attempt to arrive in the UK via small boat to claim asylum. They were intercepted, prosecuted, convicted, appealed and the appeal says...

You obviously haven't read it.

 

[Roy Bloom]

It's important to understand what you are reading.. maybe give it another go? check also the dates vs your news article.
Did they all get prosecuted, convicted and was that conviction upheld?:

A: yes
B: no it really is yes.

Thye weren't prosecuted for arriving by boat. They were prosecuted for people trafficking.

 

[denso13]

In the result, none of the grounds of appeal has any merit. We dismiss the appeals and uphold the judge’s rulings.

These were two of the issues decided in the appeal.

"Issue (1): Does “the commission of a breach of immigration law” include the offence of arrival without leave contrary to section 24(D1) of the 1971 Act?"

"Issue (2): Must the facilitator be aware or have reasonable cause to believe that the conduct of the passenger was criminal?"

Totally irrelevant to the discussion on whether immigrants need to apply for asylum in the first safe country the reach.

 

[motorbiking]

They target the "skippers" so that it's known, if you take the helm you get prosecuted. With nobody willing to skipper the boat, it's unlikely to go anywhere. Every occupant can be prosecuted.

 

[Roy Bloom]

You've got to admire the government's audacity.
Advice on teh government website to potential asylum seekers:
Migrants are often forced into situations that are extremely dangerous. Most people smugglers:

• use the cheapest boats they can find which are not suitable for dangerous waters
• fill boats with too many people
• do not provide safe life jackets

This puts migrants’ lives at serious risk during every journey.

Don’t risk it. Choose a safe and legal alternative.

[Withdrawn] Risks of illegal migration to the UK

Information for migrants on the risks and realities of travelling to the UK through dangerous or illegal routes, and the safe and legal alternatives.

www.gov.uk

There aren't any, and they know there aren't any.

 

[Roy Bloom]

They target the "skippers" so that it's known, if you take the helm you get prosecuted. With nobody willing to skipper the boat, it's unlikely to go anywhere. Every occupant can be prosecuted.

If you're in a dingy and no-one is prepared to steer the boat, what would you do?

 

[denso13]

They target the "skippers" so that it's known, if you take the helm you get prosecuted. With nobody willing to skipper the boat, it's unlikely to go anywhere. Every occupant can be prosecuted.

That is neither here nor there with regards to the discussion as you purported it to be. "Decided case law" in a Crown Court is a nonsensical statement.

 

[denso13]

If you're in a dingy and no-one is prepared to steer the boat, what would you do?

Blame Call the RNLI?