Why is this case, and very many others, even being heard by a judge in court? This guy has lied on his application, he has a criminal conviction for a very serious offence and should fail our immigration rules. Rules failed. No appeal. One way ticket to Portugal. Out. End of story.
Two culprits for me. Legal positivism thrives in a moral vacuum - there is no room for ‘judgement’ of character, suitability, purpose because we don’t all share the same understanding of what those things mean. Second, the quest for perfect justice - the perfect recipe for lawyers on hourly rates and with a social conscience. We want the right decision for every case, immune to criticism or appeal and taking pages and pages to produce. If thousands must wait in the queue, that is not the fault of the lawyers, but the system. Where will it all end?
A while back I read two books by The Secret Barrister who as a practicing barrister wished to remain anonymous.
The take away point that stuck with me is that while some judges may well be woke liberal elites they must operate with in the law and so if we are unhappy with their decisions then it is politicians and parliament that are to blame for not passing laws that judges must follow.
So if, as a simplistic example, parliament passes a law that all paedophiles must receive the death penalty then judges would have to pass that sentence if the individual was found guilty.
At least speak-your-weight machines give the right answer.
Why is this case, and very many others, even being heard by a judge in court? This guy has lied on his application, he has a criminal conviction for a very serious offence and should fail our immigration rules. Rules failed. No appeal. One way ticket to Portugal. Out. End of story.
Perhaps this judged has forgotten the whole premise of English law.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Which is what this migrant has said
How could his excuse that it was an oversight be the slightest bit plausible? Who could forget such a thing?
But he did not forget it.
He claimed that because the offence was committed in Portugal and not in the UK, it was not applicable when claiming leave to remain in the UK.
The judge said this was both an “honest mistake” and “credible”.
The judge is clearly a gullible moron.
Two culprits for me. Legal positivism thrives in a moral vacuum - there is no room for ‘judgement’ of character, suitability, purpose because we don’t all share the same understanding of what those things mean. Second, the quest for perfect justice - the perfect recipe for lawyers on hourly rates and with a social conscience. We want the right decision for every case, immune to criticism or appeal and taking pages and pages to produce. If thousands must wait in the queue, that is not the fault of the lawyers, but the system. Where will it all end?
A while back I read two books by The Secret Barrister who as a practicing barrister wished to remain anonymous.
The take away point that stuck with me is that while some judges may well be woke liberal elites they must operate with in the law and so if we are unhappy with their decisions then it is politicians and parliament that are to blame for not passing laws that judges must follow.
So if, as a simplistic example, parliament passes a law that all paedophiles must receive the death penalty then judges would have to pass that sentence if the individual was found guilty.
I’m pretty sure that anyone wanting to stay in the UK as a migrant is given legal assistance if his English is a 2nd language.
Surely the judge knows this?
If the adviser told him the criminal activity abroad didn’t count, the adviser needs to be dismissed.
If the adviser did no such thing, the
migrant must stand by his signature on the application confirming the information he gives is the truth.
Otherwise why sign the application? You might as well do something useful with the application and wipe your arse on it.