Skip to main content

Recommending deportation for foreign criminals

Theresa May has been criticised quite a bit over the past couple of weeks and she's been taking it in the neck from the Guardian and many lawyers over her suggestion that the right to a family life is a qualified right that can be overridden in some situations.  More importantly, she's upset lawyers by suggesting judges use their power under the Immigration Act 1971 to recommend deportation from the UK of foreign criminals.

Now, I may upset some of my learned friends, but I actually agree with Theresa on this one.  As Lawson LJ said in Nizari, "This country has no use for criminals of other nationalities, particularly if they have committed serious crimes or have long criminal records."

I have dealt with a number of defendants who have committed very serious offences but who have escaped deportation for reasons I've never fathomed.  In one case, drunken failed asylum seeker disagreed with a doorman's decision to remove him from a night club as a) he was exceptionally drunk; and b) he was bothering some women.  In response the chap returned to the club with an imitation firearm and began threatening to kill the doorman and his colleagues.  The fake gun was taken from him by a brave bouncer but the drunk chap then pulled a knife and continued to threaten the doormen until the police arrived.  Last I heard he had been released from prison and remains in the UK.  In another case, a defendant committed a huge fraud against the UK government that allowed thousands of people to enter or remain in the UK illegally.  She has yet to pay any of her confiscation order despite having the funds available in her bank account in her home country.  Again, she remains in the UK with her children who are being educated at British tax payers expense.  This is not somebody from a dangerous country who cannot return for fear of what might happen to her... her family are lawyers and are rather well off.

Now, I don't want anybody to think I've flipped and have joined the BNP, I haven't.  Nor have I suddenly decided to develop a racist bent.  I love immigrants, there's always something great that they bring to the UK whether its a cultural thing, food, beer, a joyful love of life or something else. 

What I do object to is people who view the UK as a soft touch that they can abuse safe in the knowledge that they'll not be sent home no matter what they do. 

I have to say that if you arrive in the UK and set up a family then deliberately set out on a life of crime then it is you who must consider your family's welfare and everybody else should not have to put up with you.  If your family cannot or will not live with you in your home nation then it is you who have broken up the family, not the state or the judge who recommends deportation.

I know you wouldn't want me to end without having a dig at the politicians, so I'll just mention that judges recommend deportation, the person they recommend deportation to is... er Theresa May!

Comments

  1. Should be compulsory after conviction to be deported (even the British ones).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Recently on a Wednesday approved cash seized from overstaying thief recovered with the miscreant on the Monday to be held for six months, to be informed that said overstayer had been put on a plane the following day [Tuesday]

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is good to see a member of the law profession thinking the same way as a large proportion of the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…