UK to Rwanda asylum plan ruled unlawful

[Roy Bloom]

The safe and legal alternative, is to walk right up to the nearest police station and ask for help.

Don't they have to be in UK to be able to do that?
How do they get to the UK?

 

[motorbiking]

They don’t. They are in a safe country who will help them. No need to break the law and pay people smugglers.

 

[Roy Bloom]

They don’t. They are in a safe country who will help them. No need to break the law and pay people smugglers.

They choose to claim asylum in UK.
They are allowed that choice by international law, and no domestic law can remove that right without contravening the UN refugee convention, to which UK is a signatory.

Which was the original point, which you tried to disprove with your presentation of a judgement about some charged with piloting a boat.

 

[Roy Bloom]

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

Not true.

From the judgement provided by you:
The charges against these Defendants are typical of charges that have been brought against persons who are alleged to have piloted small boats containing migrants from France to England. Most of these boats are intercepted at sea in British territorial waters, and the occupants are rescued and taken to an approved area in a port, usually at Dover. Normally, many, and sometimes all, of the migrants claim asylum when they land.
5. It would not be practicable to charge and then to proceed with criminal proceedings against all of the migrants who cross the Channel in small boats.

Only those alleged to have piloted the boats are charged.
The other occupants of the boats are not charged.

 

[motorbiking]

That is not the question of law being tested. Point 5 does not mean that all occupants can’t be prosecuted. It is commenting on the policy to target the skipper as a way to discourage people driving the boat. No skipper = not going anywhere.

If you read it again, you will see it very clearly sets out the elements of law being tested.

1 can a person be prosecuted before they land.
2 is the offence of attempting arrival without leave or visa enforceable when simply in U.K. waters.
3 does facilitation occur outside U.K. waters.

This ruling is key because it means all those attempting to enter the U.K. irrelevant of asylum intention can be prosecuted.

 

[Roy Bloom]

That is not the question of law being tested. Point 5 does not mean that all occupants can’t be prosecuted. It is commenting on the policy to target the skipper as a way to discourage people driving the boat. No skipper = not going anywhere.

If you read it again, you will see it very clearly sets out the elements of law being tested.

1 can a person be prosecuted before they land.
2 is the offence of attempting arrival without leave or visa enforceable when simply in U.K. waters.
3 does facilitation occur outside U.K. waters.

This ruling is key because it means all those attempting to enter the U.K. irrelevant of asylum intention can be prosecuted.

Yes, they can be charged under UK domestic law, (but generally aren't). But that law does not refute the argument that Asylum Seekers have a legal right to choose where they seek asylum under the UN Refugee Convention.

Moreover, the intention of the law change in UK (2022) was to target crininal gangs. But the people charged are not part of criminal networks, as judges have recognised, So the change in the law does not achieve its intended purpose.
Instead it results in vulnerable people being subject to a criminal process:
" Those convicted are left confused and distressed by hostile court proceedings translated through an interpreter, who may or may not even be in the same room, or even speak their first language or dialect."

"Even following the Home Office’s own logic, therefore, the justification for imprisoning people seeking asylum for arrival - an act necessary to do so - falls short."

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

blogs.law.ox.ac.uk

Even judges in such cases are mistaken by the persistent incorrect trope posted by those who really do know better.:
"Such logic is often used in sentencing justifications, including that “you are expected to claim asylum in the first country in which you arrive”, contrary to the principles of the international refugee protection system."

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

blogs.law.ox.ac.uk

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Which was appealed, lost and became judicial precedent.

The safe and legal alternative, is to walk right up to the nearest police station and ask for help.

Any British police stations abroad ?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Any British police stations abroad ?

There's a few in Lybia, they don't need to set sail in dingies.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

This ruling is key because it means all those attempting to enter the U.K. irrelevant of asylum intention can be prprosecuted.

How many have been prosecuted?

Many ?

 

[Roy Bloom]

How many have been prosecuted?

Many ?

185, 87 for piloting the boats.
The maximum sentence is life imprisonment, but the typical sentence has been 9 to 12 months.

Otherwise the government would need space for about 50,000 new prisoners.

 

[denso13]

Which was appealed, lost and became judicial precedent.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. "Decided case law" in the Crown Court is a nonsensical statement.

 

[denso13]

No need to break the law and pay people smugglers.

Then the government should act. Stop making excuses for inaction and blaming everyone else.

 

[motorbiking]

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. "Decided case law" in the Crown Court is a nonsensical statement.

Are you disputing it is case law?

 

[denso13]

The safe and legal alternative, is to walk right up to the nearest police station and ask for help.

There should be more legal routes which would be much safer.

 

[denso13]

Are you disputing it is case law?

It is judicial precedent, no one "decides" what is case law. And it can change.