Re: Judges make a mockery of justice
- From: "TD" <tdefries@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:07:19 +0100
"Stephen Glynn" <nyeplm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Mark, Devon" <coopermg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> As a side issue, for all here to note, especially the right-wingers;
the fact that we adhere to ECRH regarding foreign nationals and their
protection from deportation is not a 'New Labour issue', any more than
it is an issue for many other UK governments since WW2, including the
Tony's and New Labour's attitude to judges, the legal system and his
assault on the rule of law is an issue, that is the point.
One of Cherie Booth's lectures may be worth your time:
Although it doesn't relate to this thread, I like the President Barak
quote: 'Sometimes, democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its
And here's another quote on the subject, from Mr. Justice Sullivan:
'Mr Justice Sullivan said the Government had "deliberately delayed"
implementing an adjudication appeal panel's decision that, under human
rights law, the nine could not be sent back to Afghanistan where their
lives would be at risk.
'He made an unprecedented order that the Home Office should pay legal
costs on an indemnity basis - the highest level possible - to show his
"disquiet and concern".
'Mr Justice Sullivan, sitting in London, said of the case: "It is
difficult to conceive of a clearer case of 'conspicuous unfairness
amounting to an abuse of power'."
'He added: "Lest there be any misunderstanding, the issue in this case is
not whether the executive should take action to discourage hijacking, but
whether the executive should be required to take such action within the
law as laid down by Parliament and the courts."'
'In July 2004, an immigration adjudication panel ruled that they could not
be sent back to Afghanistan. To remove them would be in breach of Article 3
of the European Convention on Human Rights - not to be subjected to inhuman
or degrading treatment. The Government then left them in limbo by failing
formally to permit them to enter the country.
'In August 2005, Charles Clarke, the third Home Secretary to deal with their
case, introduced asylum policy instructions that gave him a new discretion
to refuse entry to applicants considered to fall within certain "exclusion
criteria". Last November, he said that the nine came within those criteria,
taking into account "the public interest in deterring acts such as
hijacking". He then ruled that it would be inappropriate to grant the nine
'Mr Justice Sullivan said that the Home Office had engaged in "a transparent
attempt to find a form of words that would enable the defendant [the Home
Secretary] to defy the adjudicators' decision without having to acknowledge
that he was doing so. For a period of nearly 17 months the Home Secretary
deliberately delayed giving effect to the adjudicators' decision in order to
give himself time to devise a revised policy which would purportedly justify
not implementing the adjudicators' decision."
'He said that the revised policy of last August was "a paradigm of a
minister being given unfettered administrative discretion to depart from a
published policy whenever he thinks it appropriate to do so."
'Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, criticised the ruling and said that he
hoped the Government would successfully appeal. He said: "We can't have a
situation in which people who hijack a plane we are not able to deport back
to their country. It is not an abuse of justice for us to order their
deportation. It is an abuse of common sense."'
No, it's an abuse of the rule of law.