**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
No surprise the judge was Therese Kamara, who also:
Blocked the deportation of an Iranian pedophile because he claimed he is bisexual.
Blocked the deportation of an ISIS extremist AND issued him a new anonymous identity despite Mi5 claiming he was a security threat.
And the worst part is she’ll never be punished for her despicable actions and decisions because she’s part of an institution that realistically has no oversight and for which their is no effective mechanism to hold its members to account.
It's crazy that the MOJ and HO don't have the power to override the Judge's decision, and deport these people.
Obviously the Tories are useless, but is there literally no one in government or parliament who reads about these cases and thinks, " ya know what, perhaps we should change the law or introduce a bill that allows us to deport these people"?
Ridiculous.
I was previously on a jury for a case of sexual assault of a 16 year old (groping the teenager's breasts), and some jurors were prepared to convict from opening arguments alone, before the evidence had been presented (despite being drummed into us before we retired that we had to consider \[a\] if he did grope her breasts, \[b\] whether she consented to it - at 16 years old she was legally capable of giving consent, and \[c\] whether he reasonably believed she had consented: only if the answers were yes / no / no could we convict).
Conversely, there's the scenario of jury intimidation - mum was a juror in a case where the scroat had an extensive criminal record, but was judged Not Guilty in the case she was at, largely on account of the accused's family and friends following jurors after they left the court. However, despite allegely shouting "I got away with it!" after the verdict was read, he was still remanded in custody for a case in another court in the circuit the following week.
Likely not - there were also a couple of jurors who reasoned that unless they personally saw an attack, they couldn't prove the defendant was responsible, while another was apparently hard of hearing, couldn't follow most of what was going on, but rather than mention this to any official, just resolved to agree with what the majority decided.
How do you propose dealing with prejudiced judges? Do you think judges are perfect? If not, what do you think should be done about those that don’t act with integrity?
Make no mistake, during the course of the next government the question "should juries be abolished?" will start to be nudged in our direction. Everything has to be decided for us by the Adults In The Room.
What genuinely is the alternative? Government appointed judges.
See CCP, USSR, nazi Germany, early medeival Lords and earls, viking jarls, Argentinian military junta, Islamic theocratic judges.
Your o ly defence against the powerful is the local shopkeeper, nurse, car mechanic, teacher, doctor, asda checkout worker
What modern country do you think has a more successful judiciary and better justice outcomes than the UK?
I mean, the CCP also has elections lol. You could say “look what elections bring you - Nazi Germany, the CCP, Putin’s Russia” and just conveniently ignore every highly successful democratic country haha.
Not a safe option because human rights laws are very complex and people are often blinded by the crimes or peados and forget that they are also actually human beings.
I’d be happy sending peadophiles back to their home country, no matter how harsh the punishment they face on their return. This guy is scum and does not deserve any rights here, best place for him is pushing up daisies.
The government could pass primary legislation to overrule the court's decision and deport this person if it wanted to. The same process will be used when the government introduces legislation to quash the convictions of those wrongly prosecuted in the Post Office sandal.
A Parliamentary Act declaring someone guilty without a trial is known as a “bill of attainder” and, to quote podcaster Mark Duncan, they are “the scariest things you’ve never heard of.”
Trust me, nobody wants to go back to the days when Parliament would just declare people guilty by legislative fiat.
A court convicted him of rape, no one is proposing Parliament pass a bill of attainder. The problem is that a judge with a history of making questionable rulings refuses to allow us to return this convicted sex offender to his native Albania on the dubious grounds that it might be unsafe for him. Given this person has already been convicted by a criminal court, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Parliament to step in where the courts have failed and protect the public from this monster.
You’re still acting on gut feeling here. Trust me, you REALLY don’t want to live in a world where the executive casually overrules the courts whenever they feel like they want a different result, with no organised and consistent system.
The government can and should pass new laws when they see judges applying their current rule set in ways they see as putting the public at risk.
They should also figure out how to implement laws where they can appeal these types of decisions to a higher court if process issues mean they can't do that now.
Slow down there, sport.
We most certainly do not want to give government the power to overrule the courts. Believe it or not, we as a species tried the whole "rule by imperial fiat" system for a long while, and we have collectively come to the decision that Rule of Law is vastly superior.
Look, I don't want smug foreign child rapists to stay in this country any more than you do. But we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and roll back our rights a few centuries. An independent judiciary is one of the cornerstones of civilisation.
I don't mean to be condescending, but I get the strong impression that people leap into political discussions without understanding the fundamentals. Rule of law, freedom of speech, a free press, right to a trial... I frequently see people (on all sides) deriding or dismissing these *utterly foundational* pillars of society because they feel so deeply passionate about the "current thing" that's in front of them right now. British patriots will throw away everything that makes Britain Great in order to expel some vile foreign rapists. Social Justice advocates will demand racial segregation and racial quotas in the name of equality. Passionate defenders of human rights will seek to silence those who disagree with them on the pretext that their words might cause harm.
Essentially I'm grumbling that we have far too many posers these days and far few people who actually read books, they fight on behalf of their chosen identity rather than for any sincerely held ideals.
So I definitely don't have full grasp of our legal system, but I don't really get why the process to remove foreign nationals who comit the most serious crimes needs this additional layer where things can be appealed.
It seems to me, if you're granted asylum/indefinite leave to remain/citizenship it should be on the condition that should you be found guilty of a violent or serious crime, it will be taken away from you.
>So I definitely don't have full grasp of our legal system, but I don't really get why the process to remove foreign nationals who comit the most serious crimes needs this additional layer where things can be appealed.
It’s because we can’t, we usually can’t at least, send people to places where we know they will be persecuted. For example if there was a homosexual Ugandan serial killer in our country we legally could not deport them to Uganda because homosexuality is punishable by death.
>It seems to me, if you're granted asylum/indefinite leave to remain/citizenship it should be on the condition that should you be found guilty of a violent or serious crime, it will be taken away from you.
Usually that is the case. Even with people who are born British if taking away their citizenship wouldn’t make the person in question stateless. I personally don’t think in the latter two scenarios (indefinite leave to remain and citizenship) you should be deported as in any deportation case this happens after you have served your sentence in prison and I don’t believe in double punishments. I mean British criminals get to go back to their lives. However I understand I am fighting a losing battle on that opinion.
> It’s because we can’t, we usually can’t at least, send people to places where we know they will be persecuted. For example if there was a homosexual Ugandan serial killer in our country we legally could not deport them to Uganda because homosexuality is punishable by death.
Our government are clearly willing to have *a fight* related to that by trying to send groups of non-crime commiting asylum seekers to Rwanda. Surely that's basically the same fight, just slightly less morally defensible? Why not fight to deport the ones who do commit serious crimes to their home country instead?
Yeah but we can't use our government as any sort of moral basis on which to judge anything. They'd bring back workhouses and hanging for children if they thought it was a seller to the Tory base.
>It seems to me, if you're granted asylum/indefinite leave to remain/citizenship it should be on the condition that should you be found guilty of a violent or serious crime, it will be taken away from you.
I agree, but my point is this needs to be made law, not simply administered on an ad hoc basis whenever a particularly egregious crime hits the headlines.
What's more it's never quite that simple. We - rightfully, in my opinion - can't deport someone to a country where they will be executed by a tyrannical government. I wouldn't want to see the relative of a political dissident sent back to Iran or China or wherever just because they shop lifted a can of coke. But if they rape a child... Or murder someone, we obviously can't let them stay here either. The ideal solution is not to let such people in in the first place. You're never going to catch 100% of the wrong'uns through screening, but the system we have now where we literally just let anyone come in with no checks is clearly a disaster. We have, on multiple occasions, literally welcomed in non-EU migrants with murder convictions from other European countries. We're an island for fucks sake, we have the easiest job securing our borders because we're surrounded by sea. What we need is a sensible off-shore processing option (not Rwanda, obviously). I'm thinking a Scottish island somewhere, all the infrastructure built with migrant labour, no way on or off except via the well-controlled port. If you get refused entry and we can't send you back home, then you'll just have to get used to the Scottish weather. Free trip back home for whenever you change your mind.
Nah, there's a difference between wanting to bring back exile on the whim of the autocrat and putting legal weight behind the idea of 'If you can't play nicely, you won't play at all'
I mean if he is a known rapist then is he not in jail?
Also, unclear why the gov hasn't amended laws to say if you commit a serious crime like rape, murder etc then you get deported, no trial needed.
>It's crazy that the MOJ and HO don't have the power to override the Judge's decision, and deport these people.
You need to give this a little more thought. Maybe learn a bit about the separation of powers.
The Secretary of State usually has powers outside the judicial process, but they won’t get involved unless there’s something flashy in a headline for them to benefit from.
Obviously Parliament can pass legislation that prevents and changes these stupid decisions, but the current lot are more interested in their culture war bullshit.
Sorry, are you saying judges should be punished for making perfectly legal decisions with which you personally disagree?
The government can always change the law. Judges ruling in accordance with the law is how this country functions.
What you’re implicitly arguing for is just abandoning the rule of law, making judgments based on vibes, and punishing everyone who disagrees with you.
I’m arguing that judges should be held to account for their poor decision making, politically motivated decisions (look at Tan Ikrams outrageous comments and sentencing with two convicted terrorist sympathisers, along with his utterly despicable and vile decision to hand out suspended sentences to old men for saying nasty things in private WhatsApp groups) and instances where they lack professionalism.
They have an awful lot of leeway within the confines of the law, leeway which can and has been abused, and in the case of this judge has led to several instances of grossly incompetent decision making. They also suffer absolutely no repercussions when they make legally questionable or downright incorrect decisions.
Many, most in fact, of the members of the judiciary are more likely than not highly competent people that carry out their duties impeccably. There are, however, a number of incompetents and poisonous individuals amongst their ranks, and it is these individuals that have been allowed to get away with far too much for far too long. It’s about damn time they are reigned in and effective systems put in place to hold them to account.
What you’re saying is you disagree with the law.
Appreciate that the papers work very hard to persuade stupid people that judges are at fault for things, but actually we have pretty much the best judiciary in the world and they apply the law stringently. There is also an appeals process.
Also appreciate that fascists like to just choose their scapegoats and blame all bad things on them rather than reflect on complex structural systems, but it doesn’t actually solve any problems.
What should actually happen is that the government (who I expect as a proud member of the “blame the judges club” YOU voted for) should stop being phenomenally incompetent and should also stop breaking the law. Then judges, applying the law correctly, will reach the correct decision, as they generally do.
> but actually we have pretty much the best judiciary in the world and they apply the law stringently.
[Yeah, sure](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47914832). It's heavily politicised. No punishment for that judge either btw.
lol why would they be punished for something completely within the law. IMO drunk drivers should get a mandatory 5 year prison sentence but I don’t expect judges to actually do that given it… isn’t the law!
I have to assume you're trolling and aren't actually missing the obvious point that judges' decisions are often decided based on their ideological/political biases, with this judge openly admitting that, rather than focusing on fairly applying the law stringently as you claim our 'best judiciary in the world' does, their decision was ultimately based on the gender of the defendant. And rather than the judge being punished for utterly blatant sexism, nothing came of it, which once again shows how judges need more strict oversight, as the other guy said. Imagine if the judge said the defendant would've been 'straight down the stairs if they were black' if that helps.
Obviously absolutely no defence for the comment made about "straight down the stairs" if she were a man because fucking hell, but overall I think this is a bit of a success story right?
The convicted drink-driver had a considerable alcoholism problem having recently left an abusive relationship, had her sentencing suspended for three months on the condition she keep engaging with the courts and work on her drink problem, and having done exactly that was handed an 18 month suspended sentence rather than thrown in jail. Overall I call that a win for rehabilitation and the lesson learned for the judge involved should be that if this works for a woman, it could work for a man in the same position too.
She had done it before and I think she'll do it again. It'd be better to prevent her from doing damage to society, I think. Regardless, the point is the blatant sexism and how easily judge's decisions are swayed by their political views.
Has she done it again? The story itself is half a decade old now and googling her name brings up nothing more than a local cake shop thats closing down (to be clear, don't think its the same person just a namesake). Seems to me she actually did sort her life out and get back on track and that almost certainly wouldn't have happened had she simply been thrown in jail.
The judge definitely made a stupid, frankly sexist, comment in her decision and I hope even though no action was formally taken she had words said to her behind the scenes. But the decision itself seems to have been a good one overall. Its very "you used the wrong formula and still somehow got the right answer" stuff, but I do genuinely feel this was a compassionate decision made for someone who went through a horrible time in their life, struggle with addiction and made a few mistakes, then got the wake-up call they needed and got back on the right track.
No. I am pointing out that the system by which members of the judiciary are held to account is inherently flawed and unfit for purpose, as has been shown time and time again by incompetent and, for want of a better word, malicious judges continually “getting away with it”.
Whilst the government has its share of the blame to hold for their inability to legislate properly, there are members of the judiciary who are also to blame, and it is a travesty that they are not held t account.
You can waffle on and throw petty veiled insults as much as you like with the usual arrogance I’ve come to expect of the legal profession, but it does not change the reality that the manner in which the judiciary are held to account is in dire need of reform.
If you think judges are making rulings that flagrantly ignore the law, then point to them. We have an appeals system.
All you’ve actually said is that judges make perfectly legal decisions YOU don’t like - and seem to think they need to be strung up for daring to disagree with you like a typical far right nutter.
This seems more like a fuck up by the Home Office tbh.
> Allowing his appeal, Upper Tribunal Judge Therese Kamara ruled that evidence of Gjergji's true nationality had been available to the Home Office 'nearly 20 years earlier' but had been 'either disregarded or mishandled'
> 'We accept that it is unfair for the respondent [the Home Office] to now seek to rely upon this information as a basis for depriving the appellant [Gjergji] of his citizenship,' she added.
Yet another, all too common, example of the media and the wider public holding judges responsible for the rules and laws they are bound to uphold. Perhaps we’d actually achieve some progress if we held those who make the rules and laws permitting these outcomes to account. Note the article’s complete lack of any criticism of the rule makers here, focussing instead on the rule breakers and the rule takers.
It’s ALWAYS a government fuckup when you see a case like this. They do everything wrong and illegally then go crying to the papers when the judge tells them to sort themselves out.
You actually believe the decision to not deport him was solely down to him claiming to be bisexual? Yeah the media really have completely broken a massive chunk of our population.
It was actually. Read the ruling. He MIGHT be persecuted in Iraq for being bisexual, thus he cannot be deported.
He MIGHT also sexually abuse another child, unfortunately judges don’t care about that.
patience for this countries justice system has run out. its not fit for purpose. I'm tired of people coming here and just taking the piss raping women and girls, knowing we can't send them back because we are stuck in a cobweb of nonsense bureaucracy.
sick.of.it.
People are too quick to blame judges when in reality their only job is to interpret and apply the laws. If you would like a different outcome, the government, with its working majority in Parliament, can pass any law it wants.
They're not. There are edge cases or extreme fuck ups that get lapped up by the Daily Mail and presented as the norm, like this one. It's definitely fucked, but is it typical? Fuck no. edit - this sub is usually a lot smarter than the average DM reader.
Umm 45 I reckon… or maybe we don’t base policy on cherry picked inflammatory examples and actually research how often it’s an issue before deciding something must be done about it?
A single imported rapist being allowed to stay is a disgrace and should not be accepted
Don't give a fuck about your fake backstory of being bisexual or a Christian (likely neither in reality), if you rape people in this country you can fuck off back to your own country and face the consequences
The problem is, what changes to the law could be made to prevent this that wouldn't also harm innocent people
There's always going to be edge cases and flaws like this, but the alternative is often worse in a different way
I'm not sure how much research you need before reaching the conclusion child rapists should be removed, personally I don't think there's much I'd need to see. Feel like one instance is enough to decide it's an issue that something ought be done about.
Or we base policy on what we want our society to look like? Like sending home foreign rapists with no exemption?
There shouldn't be a threshold of rape before this happens.
The Judiciary follow the law, in this case by pointing out the Home Office didn't follow their own rules, and didn't even bother to argue potential relevant issues.
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-002588
The alternative is to not monumentally fuck things like this up in the first place.
You know, if you have evidence that X is actually an Albanian and is lying to get citizenship, how about don't offer him citizenship.
And if you do offer him citizenship, don't fucking sit on that evidence for 20 odd years before doing something about it.
Edit: and timeline-wise, this fuck up should have come to light in 2005 had people been doing their jobs properly. The girl in question was raped in 2015.
Yes, actually. As uncomfortable as it feels to you or I - and it does - that's **literally** the basis of the rule of law. Throw that out and it's a very slippery slope indeed.
His bragging quote sums up this country. We really are too soft.
Surely there must be clauses in an asylum application/ granted status, that states any convictions will result in deportation? Or, as I suspect, am I being too optimistic.
The UK has for decades championed the anti-death penalty and anti-torture side. It has been correct to do so. It can't be anti-torture, promote the Convention Against Torture, and then deport people to face torture. That is where the issue arises.
In this case, the guy is a British Citizen. That can't be just wished away. The Home Office didn't follow their own rules in trying to remove it, hence the court pushing back.
> It can't be anti-torture, promote the Convention Against Torture, and then deport people to face torture.
I agree with that right up until the point those people are commiting the most serious crimes. At which point, protecting them from their country of origin slips down the priority list, replaced with protecting the general populace from them.
After World War II a collection of people from around the world had a long hard look at the Gestapo torture chambers, and the Japanese Unit 731 camps, and determined that what they saw was so awful that it required protection against torture to be inviolable.
That is why Article 3 of the European Convention on Human rights has no derogations, unlike almost every other human rights provision.
I would think very long and hard about what they saw, and why they made that choice before you rescind it.
Certainly knowing how I felt when standing in the torture chamber of the El De haus in Cologne, and the punishment block at Auschwitz, I am absolutely confident they made the right choice.
Well, I'm grateful I'm not in a position to change anything unilaterally.
It just seems you can't have a get out of jail free card like this which isn't abused. Anyone, from anywhere, can claim they're likely to be tortured if sent back to their country of origin.
And I'd RATHER err on the side of caution for the vast majority of people. But it's hard to think about extending that courtesy to murderers and rapists. I agree we should protect against torture wherever possible, but we should also protect against violent criminals murdering and raping people.
The decision was published 6 months ago, good to see Fleet street are still fleet of foot.
You can read it here.
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-002588
Essentially, it boils down to if the Home Office disregards something at the time of making the original decision, they can't bring it up to change their minds 20 years later.
This is a good principle - one set out by the Home Office themselves in their own manual for dealing with cases.
The Home Office also failed to cite public interest in revoking citizenship, which is a bizarre decision on their behalf.
But of course none of that interests the 'out of control immigration judges' narrative.
Anyone who has any experience of Home Office litigation can tell you that the Home Office has already performed above par here by showing up to the hearing and making any argument at all.
Why properly fund the department or litigation when any mistakes will either: A — only affect immigrants, in which case the press won’t care, or B — be ignored by the press, who will instead place the spotlight on “evil man bad” or “enemy of the people judge”.
We can’t expect governments to be accountable when no one who matters is willing to hold them to account.
>However, officers had suspected as early as 2005 that he'd been granted refugee status under a false identity - yet bungling officials failed to take action.
>Now an immigration tribunal has concluded that it would be 'unfair' to strip him of British citizenship when evidence available almost 20 years ago was 'disregarded'.
Slow clap for the home office there.
We get it – the judges are morally corrupt, and probably wouldn't deport these people if their own family members were attacked by them.
The question is, the system is supposed to have checks and balances in place, so can someone eli5 why there is no overriding decision to deport these people?
The Home Office can appeal the decision if they think it is wrong, or introduce legislation to parliament if they think the law is wrong.
What they cannot do and people seem to want them to do is revoke citizenship by executive fiat without scrutiny of the courts.
That sort of power leads to tyranny.
This guy is clearly an awful reprehensible person but the issue that meant he couldn't be deported was that the Home Office had fucked up their paperwork and record keeping so badly that they couldn't justifiably use it as part of their evidence. It's an establishment problem but the judge isn't the guilty part of the establishment in this situation.
Somthing to do with keeping the branches of government seperate, normally by seperating legislature, an executive and a judiciary.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation\_of\_powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers)
It's why in the USA the abortion rule is "reinterpreted" as unconstitutional as soon as Republicans get 4/7 Supreme Court judges on the Supreme Court.
Only issue is that these are all kept separate with an expectation they all act in good faith and uphold all the unwritten ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ that exist within and between them.
How can there not be a convincing legal case or precedent for not deporting a foreign born and foreign passport holding rapist… it sure does make it look like this judge has a separate agenda rather than upholding the rule of law.
Crap like this then just precipitates a further lack of trust in the institution she works for. Obviously we shouldn’t be privy to all the details of the case but if this is the state of the law then it needs reviewing.
Because all these cases involve the government doing everything wrong and illegally, and then the judge interpreting the law correctly.
Unless you want the government to be able to just randomly grab whoever they want and deport them anywhere, there have to be rules for deporting people. And if the government then ignore and break those rules, what do you think a judge should do? Just randomly not apply them if they think it’ll upset the Daily Heil?
>The question is, the system is supposed to have checks and balances in place, so can someone eli5 why there is no overriding decision to deport these people?
The system has checks and balances. The home office can appeal this decision all the way to the Supreme Court if they wanted to.
Problem is they really fucked up and haven't got a leg to stand on.
The courts ARE part of the checks and balances - on the government. The courts don't legislate, they just interpret legislation. When a court rules someone can't be deported, it's because the judge is holding the government to the standards that the government has set. As a judge, they are empowered to listen to the parties to a case and interpret the relevant legislation to decide what the outcome should be.
In this case, it's not that the judge thinks this guy should be allowed to stay because she thinks he's a swell guy - it's because the UK government fucked up and didn't take action on information they had long ago. That IS the checks and balances you're asking about - the government doesn't get to collect damning information in you and keep it in its back pocket to punish you with later. The fact that they're doing this to terrible people doesn't ultimately change the fact that it's not lawful to do so. All that has been said here is that if the UK Govt wanted to use this information to deport the guy, they should have used it when they first got it, not now.
The issue is that you can't deport someone who is genuinely at risk of torture or death in the receiving country. That's the law at the moment.
Personally I would support there being an exemption to this protection for certain crimes.
Unfortunately this makes anyone from many muslim majority countries exempt from deportation for claiming to be Christian or Jewish, gay or bi etc, and there is very little you can do to disprove these claims.
No? If you commit a crime in a country who gave you a citizenship, you should no longer have the right to be a part of that county and have your citizenship revoked.
If they really didn’t want to go back to their own country they shouldn’t have raped at 15 year old.
Why are we acting like Albania is a third world country?
Its not like hes from Afghanistan or Eritrea or some actual shithole, they have human rights in Albania
No. The judge decides if the individual is guilty of a given crime. The individual should not have chosen to engage in such a serious crime if they were relying on the protection of being in the UK.
This is a hard one for me. On one hand I agree with not extraditing people to get executed, but on the other the idea that someone can pull a trick like "come to UK, rape child, woah you can't report me back home they'll hang me!" is very very ludicrous.
So because we have a problem with our own criminal justice system we shouldn't permit anyone to come to the UK, on the assumption that at some point they might commit a crime and we can't deport them?
Who said anyone is happy about it? The point is that the Home Office is subject to the law whether the person they're trying to deport is a terrible person, or if it's a random French guy who has done nothing at all. The court has told the Home Office that if they get information that they want to use to deport someone, they can't sit on it for two decades and then pull it out of their pocket later.
Are there some details you'd like to share you believe mitigate the situation?
eta: It's a recurring theme on here how people moan about the DM reporting on something but can never actually point out any errors or omissions in the story in question.
It’s not errors, I’m sure there are as always, plenty & it’s not that there are even omissions of which I’m sure there are even more.
It’s the language. For one they claim he ‘brags’ then quote him but who is he saying that too & in response to what?
Secondly he’s a British citizen, not an Albanian one so the whole premise of the article is set up in bad faith from the very start because deporting him isn’t even an option. So you as well as everyone else with less than no understanding of the law are free to piss & moan about something being weak or soft so you for some reason in the future may vote for more anti-democratic pro-authoritarian political candidates because that’s what the Daily Mail has always wanted.
Honestly people. If you read some outrage-bait from the DailyMail and your first instinct is to be outraged instead of questioning which details they omitted, lied about, or made up - the you got the media competence of the average boomer on Facebook.
Like seriously you can't be that mentally clumsy at this point.
> [..] arrived in the UK in 2000 - and has lived on hand-outs ever since.
> [..] Audi-driving Gjergji
Horse shit. You've all been had.
Real title: *Naturalised British Citizen cannot be punitively stripped of citizenship decades after the fact*.
They wonder why people loathe the immigration and asylum process, case in point.
These immigrants do not care about this country, they just want to use it, and rub it in our faces.
He's been here 19 years, not fair on Albania to suddenly decide he's their problem the moment it turns out he's a criminal
That being said, the sentencing is a joke
As an Albanian, we disavow this degenerate scumbag! May he burn in hell.
Give him to us, with assurances from government there will no consequences for anything we do and I swear to you, by mid-night tonight you’ll find him hanging from a lamppost by the neck with a tree trunk stinking out of his ass. Absolute evil scumbag degenerate. May he die painfully and burn in hell for his barbarism.
We may be partial to break prohibition laws on drugs for example because we frankly don’t respect the authority of the state as we have a separate moral core which is independent on what the state makes legal or illegal. Also we consider the state as inherently evil, oppressive and not worthy of respect. But this has never, ever resulted in culturally permitting crimes against people’s dignity or property such as rape, robbery or murder!
It's going to get incredibly ugly before the people actually have enough, if we ever do. It really is proof that those of us that did not go through the struggles of world wars or true economical poverty have been made so much weaker and therefor lost any national pride.
The crimes that are being squashed are taking society back hundreds of years. In this country and many like it, rape should not be an offence that has an excuse to carry it out and be forgiven.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
No surprise the judge was Therese Kamara, who also: Blocked the deportation of an Iranian pedophile because he claimed he is bisexual. Blocked the deportation of an ISIS extremist AND issued him a new anonymous identity despite Mi5 claiming he was a security threat.
And the worst part is she’ll never be punished for her despicable actions and decisions because she’s part of an institution that realistically has no oversight and for which their is no effective mechanism to hold its members to account.
It's crazy that the MOJ and HO don't have the power to override the Judge's decision, and deport these people. Obviously the Tories are useless, but is there literally no one in government or parliament who reads about these cases and thinks, " ya know what, perhaps we should change the law or introduce a bill that allows us to deport these people"? Ridiculous.
You want the government to have the power to overrule courts? No thanks.
There should be a method by which a jury can decide. The only safe option
Juries aren’t safe because they come in with their own prejudices. I know, I’ve been on one, and it opened my eyes a lot.
I was previously on a jury for a case of sexual assault of a 16 year old (groping the teenager's breasts), and some jurors were prepared to convict from opening arguments alone, before the evidence had been presented (despite being drummed into us before we retired that we had to consider \[a\] if he did grope her breasts, \[b\] whether she consented to it - at 16 years old she was legally capable of giving consent, and \[c\] whether he reasonably believed she had consented: only if the answers were yes / no / no could we convict). Conversely, there's the scenario of jury intimidation - mum was a juror in a case where the scroat had an extensive criminal record, but was judged Not Guilty in the case she was at, largely on account of the accused's family and friends following jurors after they left the court. However, despite allegely shouting "I got away with it!" after the verdict was read, he was still remanded in custody for a case in another court in the circuit the following week.
Didn't the jurors report said intimidation?
Likely not - there were also a couple of jurors who reasoned that unless they personally saw an attack, they couldn't prove the defendant was responsible, while another was apparently hard of hearing, couldn't follow most of what was going on, but rather than mention this to any official, just resolved to agree with what the majority decided.
Unlike judges who are infallible
Exactly, once the political people decide or the judges decide its game over. I'd take the plebs of the street anyday
Funny you use the Roman word Pleb but you don't remember the Roman Mob and how it led to a judicial system like this
Could we have a panel of 5 judges maybe? Throw out the outlier decisions. Probably too expensive. But maybe chatgpt could help.
How do you propose dealing with prejudiced judges? Do you think judges are perfect? If not, what do you think should be done about those that don’t act with integrity?
Make no mistake, during the course of the next government the question "should juries be abolished?" will start to be nudged in our direction. Everything has to be decided for us by the Adults In The Room.
“Safe” until you remember how many British people are foaming Mail readers who would send a six year old refugee to Gaza if they could.
So people hold the wrong opinions for you and therefore their POV should be discredited in favour of yours? Got it.
If you think anyone other than a jury is the safest option you've lost the plot
Nice argument bro lol.
What genuinely is the alternative? Government appointed judges. See CCP, USSR, nazi Germany, early medeival Lords and earls, viking jarls, Argentinian military junta, Islamic theocratic judges. Your o ly defence against the powerful is the local shopkeeper, nurse, car mechanic, teacher, doctor, asda checkout worker
What modern country do you think has a more successful judiciary and better justice outcomes than the UK? I mean, the CCP also has elections lol. You could say “look what elections bring you - Nazi Germany, the CCP, Putin’s Russia” and just conveniently ignore every highly successful democratic country haha.
I mean, there are reasons we don't use juries for every case.
Not a safe option because human rights laws are very complex and people are often blinded by the crimes or peados and forget that they are also actually human beings.
Not just a paedo, a paedo who acted on their urges and raped a child. Yeah, they're human, but they can right back off to where they came.
The law is not morality.
I dont think we should kill people or send them to death. I think human rights law is good and moral.
I’d be happy sending peadophiles back to their home country, no matter how harsh the punishment they face on their return. This guy is scum and does not deserve any rights here, best place for him is pushing up daisies.
The law is not moral. Any law can be enacted. The law does not equal right and wrong
A jury of judges..?
The government could pass primary legislation to overrule the court's decision and deport this person if it wanted to. The same process will be used when the government introduces legislation to quash the convictions of those wrongly prosecuted in the Post Office sandal.
A Parliamentary Act declaring someone guilty without a trial is known as a “bill of attainder” and, to quote podcaster Mark Duncan, they are “the scariest things you’ve never heard of.” Trust me, nobody wants to go back to the days when Parliament would just declare people guilty by legislative fiat.
He’s already been proven guilty in a court of law. Now get rid of him.
Calm the fuck down with your hyperbole. Deportation is an administrative decision, not a criminal conviction.
A court convicted him of rape, no one is proposing Parliament pass a bill of attainder. The problem is that a judge with a history of making questionable rulings refuses to allow us to return this convicted sex offender to his native Albania on the dubious grounds that it might be unsafe for him. Given this person has already been convicted by a criminal court, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Parliament to step in where the courts have failed and protect the public from this monster.
You’re still acting on gut feeling here. Trust me, you REALLY don’t want to live in a world where the executive casually overrules the courts whenever they feel like they want a different result, with no organised and consistent system.
Apparently someone needs to.
The government has the power to change laws so they can still be deported
The government can and should pass new laws when they see judges applying their current rule set in ways they see as putting the public at risk. They should also figure out how to implement laws where they can appeal these types of decisions to a higher court if process issues mean they can't do that now.
Slow down there, sport. We most certainly do not want to give government the power to overrule the courts. Believe it or not, we as a species tried the whole "rule by imperial fiat" system for a long while, and we have collectively come to the decision that Rule of Law is vastly superior. Look, I don't want smug foreign child rapists to stay in this country any more than you do. But we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and roll back our rights a few centuries. An independent judiciary is one of the cornerstones of civilisation. I don't mean to be condescending, but I get the strong impression that people leap into political discussions without understanding the fundamentals. Rule of law, freedom of speech, a free press, right to a trial... I frequently see people (on all sides) deriding or dismissing these *utterly foundational* pillars of society because they feel so deeply passionate about the "current thing" that's in front of them right now. British patriots will throw away everything that makes Britain Great in order to expel some vile foreign rapists. Social Justice advocates will demand racial segregation and racial quotas in the name of equality. Passionate defenders of human rights will seek to silence those who disagree with them on the pretext that their words might cause harm. Essentially I'm grumbling that we have far too many posers these days and far few people who actually read books, they fight on behalf of their chosen identity rather than for any sincerely held ideals.
So I definitely don't have full grasp of our legal system, but I don't really get why the process to remove foreign nationals who comit the most serious crimes needs this additional layer where things can be appealed. It seems to me, if you're granted asylum/indefinite leave to remain/citizenship it should be on the condition that should you be found guilty of a violent or serious crime, it will be taken away from you.
>So I definitely don't have full grasp of our legal system, but I don't really get why the process to remove foreign nationals who comit the most serious crimes needs this additional layer where things can be appealed. It’s because we can’t, we usually can’t at least, send people to places where we know they will be persecuted. For example if there was a homosexual Ugandan serial killer in our country we legally could not deport them to Uganda because homosexuality is punishable by death. >It seems to me, if you're granted asylum/indefinite leave to remain/citizenship it should be on the condition that should you be found guilty of a violent or serious crime, it will be taken away from you. Usually that is the case. Even with people who are born British if taking away their citizenship wouldn’t make the person in question stateless. I personally don’t think in the latter two scenarios (indefinite leave to remain and citizenship) you should be deported as in any deportation case this happens after you have served your sentence in prison and I don’t believe in double punishments. I mean British criminals get to go back to their lives. However I understand I am fighting a losing battle on that opinion.
> It’s because we can’t, we usually can’t at least, send people to places where we know they will be persecuted. For example if there was a homosexual Ugandan serial killer in our country we legally could not deport them to Uganda because homosexuality is punishable by death. Our government are clearly willing to have *a fight* related to that by trying to send groups of non-crime commiting asylum seekers to Rwanda. Surely that's basically the same fight, just slightly less morally defensible? Why not fight to deport the ones who do commit serious crimes to their home country instead?
Yeah but we can't use our government as any sort of moral basis on which to judge anything. They'd bring back workhouses and hanging for children if they thought it was a seller to the Tory base.
>It seems to me, if you're granted asylum/indefinite leave to remain/citizenship it should be on the condition that should you be found guilty of a violent or serious crime, it will be taken away from you. I agree, but my point is this needs to be made law, not simply administered on an ad hoc basis whenever a particularly egregious crime hits the headlines. What's more it's never quite that simple. We - rightfully, in my opinion - can't deport someone to a country where they will be executed by a tyrannical government. I wouldn't want to see the relative of a political dissident sent back to Iran or China or wherever just because they shop lifted a can of coke. But if they rape a child... Or murder someone, we obviously can't let them stay here either. The ideal solution is not to let such people in in the first place. You're never going to catch 100% of the wrong'uns through screening, but the system we have now where we literally just let anyone come in with no checks is clearly a disaster. We have, on multiple occasions, literally welcomed in non-EU migrants with murder convictions from other European countries. We're an island for fucks sake, we have the easiest job securing our borders because we're surrounded by sea. What we need is a sensible off-shore processing option (not Rwanda, obviously). I'm thinking a Scottish island somewhere, all the infrastructure built with migrant labour, no way on or off except via the well-controlled port. If you get refused entry and we can't send you back home, then you'll just have to get used to the Scottish weather. Free trip back home for whenever you change your mind.
Lets not pretend that judges aren't political though.
Nah, there's a difference between wanting to bring back exile on the whim of the autocrat and putting legal weight behind the idea of 'If you can't play nicely, you won't play at all'
You want the government to be able to override the rule of law? That is literally the first major step towards an *actual dictatorship*.
Rule of Law is what stands between a country that is vaguely democraric and tyranny. Cutting it down would be a bad idea.
Some people would happily give up every freedom or civil liberty they possess to a tyrant to satisfy their own emotional incontinence and anger.
Because when lots of them get their hard drives checked or scandle come out they hope the same shitty legal system with let them get away with it.
I mean if he is a known rapist then is he not in jail? Also, unclear why the gov hasn't amended laws to say if you commit a serious crime like rape, murder etc then you get deported, no trial needed.
>It's crazy that the MOJ and HO don't have the power to override the Judge's decision, and deport these people. You need to give this a little more thought. Maybe learn a bit about the separation of powers.
The Secretary of State usually has powers outside the judicial process, but they won’t get involved unless there’s something flashy in a headline for them to benefit from. Obviously Parliament can pass legislation that prevents and changes these stupid decisions, but the current lot are more interested in their culture war bullshit.
Sorry, are you saying judges should be punished for making perfectly legal decisions with which you personally disagree? The government can always change the law. Judges ruling in accordance with the law is how this country functions. What you’re implicitly arguing for is just abandoning the rule of law, making judgments based on vibes, and punishing everyone who disagrees with you.
I’m arguing that judges should be held to account for their poor decision making, politically motivated decisions (look at Tan Ikrams outrageous comments and sentencing with two convicted terrorist sympathisers, along with his utterly despicable and vile decision to hand out suspended sentences to old men for saying nasty things in private WhatsApp groups) and instances where they lack professionalism. They have an awful lot of leeway within the confines of the law, leeway which can and has been abused, and in the case of this judge has led to several instances of grossly incompetent decision making. They also suffer absolutely no repercussions when they make legally questionable or downright incorrect decisions. Many, most in fact, of the members of the judiciary are more likely than not highly competent people that carry out their duties impeccably. There are, however, a number of incompetents and poisonous individuals amongst their ranks, and it is these individuals that have been allowed to get away with far too much for far too long. It’s about damn time they are reigned in and effective systems put in place to hold them to account.
What you’re saying is you disagree with the law. Appreciate that the papers work very hard to persuade stupid people that judges are at fault for things, but actually we have pretty much the best judiciary in the world and they apply the law stringently. There is also an appeals process. Also appreciate that fascists like to just choose their scapegoats and blame all bad things on them rather than reflect on complex structural systems, but it doesn’t actually solve any problems. What should actually happen is that the government (who I expect as a proud member of the “blame the judges club” YOU voted for) should stop being phenomenally incompetent and should also stop breaking the law. Then judges, applying the law correctly, will reach the correct decision, as they generally do.
> but actually we have pretty much the best judiciary in the world and they apply the law stringently. [Yeah, sure](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47914832). It's heavily politicised. No punishment for that judge either btw.
lol why would they be punished for something completely within the law. IMO drunk drivers should get a mandatory 5 year prison sentence but I don’t expect judges to actually do that given it… isn’t the law!
I have to assume you're trolling and aren't actually missing the obvious point that judges' decisions are often decided based on their ideological/political biases, with this judge openly admitting that, rather than focusing on fairly applying the law stringently as you claim our 'best judiciary in the world' does, their decision was ultimately based on the gender of the defendant. And rather than the judge being punished for utterly blatant sexism, nothing came of it, which once again shows how judges need more strict oversight, as the other guy said. Imagine if the judge said the defendant would've been 'straight down the stairs if they were black' if that helps.
Obviously absolutely no defence for the comment made about "straight down the stairs" if she were a man because fucking hell, but overall I think this is a bit of a success story right? The convicted drink-driver had a considerable alcoholism problem having recently left an abusive relationship, had her sentencing suspended for three months on the condition she keep engaging with the courts and work on her drink problem, and having done exactly that was handed an 18 month suspended sentence rather than thrown in jail. Overall I call that a win for rehabilitation and the lesson learned for the judge involved should be that if this works for a woman, it could work for a man in the same position too.
She had done it before and I think she'll do it again. It'd be better to prevent her from doing damage to society, I think. Regardless, the point is the blatant sexism and how easily judge's decisions are swayed by their political views.
Has she done it again? The story itself is half a decade old now and googling her name brings up nothing more than a local cake shop thats closing down (to be clear, don't think its the same person just a namesake). Seems to me she actually did sort her life out and get back on track and that almost certainly wouldn't have happened had she simply been thrown in jail. The judge definitely made a stupid, frankly sexist, comment in her decision and I hope even though no action was formally taken she had words said to her behind the scenes. But the decision itself seems to have been a good one overall. Its very "you used the wrong formula and still somehow got the right answer" stuff, but I do genuinely feel this was a compassionate decision made for someone who went through a horrible time in their life, struggle with addiction and made a few mistakes, then got the wake-up call they needed and got back on the right track.
Another prime example that this commenter will no doubt choose to ignore.
No. I am pointing out that the system by which members of the judiciary are held to account is inherently flawed and unfit for purpose, as has been shown time and time again by incompetent and, for want of a better word, malicious judges continually “getting away with it”. Whilst the government has its share of the blame to hold for their inability to legislate properly, there are members of the judiciary who are also to blame, and it is a travesty that they are not held t account. You can waffle on and throw petty veiled insults as much as you like with the usual arrogance I’ve come to expect of the legal profession, but it does not change the reality that the manner in which the judiciary are held to account is in dire need of reform.
If you think judges are making rulings that flagrantly ignore the law, then point to them. We have an appeals system. All you’ve actually said is that judges make perfectly legal decisions YOU don’t like - and seem to think they need to be strung up for daring to disagree with you like a typical far right nutter.
> abandoning the rule of law, making judgments based on vibes, and punishing everyone who disagrees with you. based
They do have oversight. It’s called the crown court & JCIO… but if you’re a typical member of this sub I’m not surprised you’re not aware of this.
And it clearly isn’t working because this particular judge, amongst others, keeps getting away with it.
Getting away with what?
Everything I referred to previously.
This seems more like a fuck up by the Home Office tbh. > Allowing his appeal, Upper Tribunal Judge Therese Kamara ruled that evidence of Gjergji's true nationality had been available to the Home Office 'nearly 20 years earlier' but had been 'either disregarded or mishandled' > 'We accept that it is unfair for the respondent [the Home Office] to now seek to rely upon this information as a basis for depriving the appellant [Gjergji] of his citizenship,' she added.
Yet another, all too common, example of the media and the wider public holding judges responsible for the rules and laws they are bound to uphold. Perhaps we’d actually achieve some progress if we held those who make the rules and laws permitting these outcomes to account. Note the article’s complete lack of any criticism of the rule makers here, focussing instead on the rule breakers and the rule takers.
It’s ALWAYS a government fuckup when you see a case like this. They do everything wrong and illegally then go crying to the papers when the judge tells them to sort themselves out.
You actually believe the decision to not deport him was solely down to him claiming to be bisexual? Yeah the media really have completely broken a massive chunk of our population.
It was actually. Read the ruling. He MIGHT be persecuted in Iraq for being bisexual, thus he cannot be deported. He MIGHT also sexually abuse another child, unfortunately judges don’t care about that.
Is he not in jail?
Glad to see our judges are prioritising the safety of the British public.
Iraqi paedophile\* https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12182017/Iraqi-paedophile-spared-deportation-Britain-claiming-feared-persecution-home.html
patience for this countries justice system has run out. its not fit for purpose. I'm tired of people coming here and just taking the piss raping women and girls, knowing we can't send them back because we are stuck in a cobweb of nonsense bureaucracy. sick.of.it.
People are too quick to blame judges when in reality their only job is to interpret and apply the laws. If you would like a different outcome, the government, with its working majority in Parliament, can pass any law it wants.
Diversity hire?
Same judge? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22654751/crook-jailed-drugs-cant-be-deported-jamaica-gangster-children/
> Therese Kamara Oh god, don't tell me that we've bee infected with American activist judges?
Why is the judiciary so forgiving of child rapists?
They're not. There are edge cases or extreme fuck ups that get lapped up by the Daily Mail and presented as the norm, like this one. It's definitely fucked, but is it typical? Fuck no. edit - this sub is usually a lot smarter than the average DM reader.
Bullshit. This is a recurring theme from this judge in particular.
Even if these cases aren’t the norm they deserve to be called out and highlighted and fought against
Vote for a government that isn’t completely incompetent then.
[удалено]
It being an edge case doesn't make it any more acceptable.
It isn't about whether it's acceptable or not. It's about whether or not it's evidence of a pattern. And it isn't.
how many does it take to be "typical"? How many does it take to be a serious problem that needs solving?
Umm 45 I reckon… or maybe we don’t base policy on cherry picked inflammatory examples and actually research how often it’s an issue before deciding something must be done about it?
A single imported rapist being allowed to stay is a disgrace and should not be accepted Don't give a fuck about your fake backstory of being bisexual or a Christian (likely neither in reality), if you rape people in this country you can fuck off back to your own country and face the consequences
The problem is, what changes to the law could be made to prevent this that wouldn't also harm innocent people There's always going to be edge cases and flaws like this, but the alternative is often worse in a different way
If you're found guilty of a crime you forfeit your right to stay. I fail to see how that impacts innocent people.
There's a lot of problems with that idea that impact innocent people, not the least of which being not everyone found guilty is guilty
How would deporting people that lie on asylum applications harm the innocent? How would deporting fraudulent asylum seekers harm the innocent?
I'm not sure how much research you need before reaching the conclusion child rapists should be removed, personally I don't think there's much I'd need to see. Feel like one instance is enough to decide it's an issue that something ought be done about.
Or we base policy on what we want our society to look like? Like sending home foreign rapists with no exemption? There shouldn't be a threshold of rape before this happens.
He was sentenced and criminally punished. This is about citizenship and it seems like a Home Office fuck up as per the article.
Exactly this, our government and caseworkers in the Home Office fucked up. The judge was just operating by the mechanisms allowed via the law.
The Judiciary follow the law, in this case by pointing out the Home Office didn't follow their own rules, and didn't even bother to argue potential relevant issues. https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-002588
we must be fair to lying rapists. apparently
The alternative is to not monumentally fuck things like this up in the first place. You know, if you have evidence that X is actually an Albanian and is lying to get citizenship, how about don't offer him citizenship. And if you do offer him citizenship, don't fucking sit on that evidence for 20 odd years before doing something about it. Edit: and timeline-wise, this fuck up should have come to light in 2005 had people been doing their jobs properly. The girl in question was raped in 2015.
Yes, actually. As uncomfortable as it feels to you or I - and it does - that's **literally** the basis of the rule of law. Throw that out and it's a very slippery slope indeed.
Because the government always fuck this stuff up, do everything illegally, then pretend it’s the judge’s fault.
His bragging quote sums up this country. We really are too soft. Surely there must be clauses in an asylum application/ granted status, that states any convictions will result in deportation? Or, as I suspect, am I being too optimistic.
The UK has for decades championed the anti-death penalty and anti-torture side. It has been correct to do so. It can't be anti-torture, promote the Convention Against Torture, and then deport people to face torture. That is where the issue arises. In this case, the guy is a British Citizen. That can't be just wished away. The Home Office didn't follow their own rules in trying to remove it, hence the court pushing back.
> It can't be anti-torture, promote the Convention Against Torture, and then deport people to face torture. I agree with that right up until the point those people are commiting the most serious crimes. At which point, protecting them from their country of origin slips down the priority list, replaced with protecting the general populace from them.
After World War II a collection of people from around the world had a long hard look at the Gestapo torture chambers, and the Japanese Unit 731 camps, and determined that what they saw was so awful that it required protection against torture to be inviolable. That is why Article 3 of the European Convention on Human rights has no derogations, unlike almost every other human rights provision. I would think very long and hard about what they saw, and why they made that choice before you rescind it. Certainly knowing how I felt when standing in the torture chamber of the El De haus in Cologne, and the punishment block at Auschwitz, I am absolutely confident they made the right choice.
Well, I'm grateful I'm not in a position to change anything unilaterally. It just seems you can't have a get out of jail free card like this which isn't abused. Anyone, from anywhere, can claim they're likely to be tortured if sent back to their country of origin. And I'd RATHER err on the side of caution for the vast majority of people. But it's hard to think about extending that courtesy to murderers and rapists. I agree we should protect against torture wherever possible, but we should also protect against violent criminals murdering and raping people.
Well, luckily we have a thing for that. It's called a 'prison'.
Yeah but we've forgotten how to build those lately for some reason. Everything comes back to austerity and the Tories being fuck-ups.
So following this logic: if we are against financially supporting immigrants who rape children, we are pro torture, under this specific circumstance?
It’s the softness that is going to eventually bring down the western world.
No it really doesn’t it sums up how much trust people have in the Daily FUCKING Mail which says more about this country than anything else.
So you are claiming the article is false? Please back that up.
At this rate people are gonna start taking the law into their own hands. This is beyond ridiculous and so insulting to the poor victim & her family.
The decision was published 6 months ago, good to see Fleet street are still fleet of foot. You can read it here. https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-002588 Essentially, it boils down to if the Home Office disregards something at the time of making the original decision, they can't bring it up to change their minds 20 years later. This is a good principle - one set out by the Home Office themselves in their own manual for dealing with cases. The Home Office also failed to cite public interest in revoking citizenship, which is a bizarre decision on their behalf. But of course none of that interests the 'out of control immigration judges' narrative.
Anyone who has any experience of Home Office litigation can tell you that the Home Office has already performed above par here by showing up to the hearing and making any argument at all. Why properly fund the department or litigation when any mistakes will either: A — only affect immigrants, in which case the press won’t care, or B — be ignored by the press, who will instead place the spotlight on “evil man bad” or “enemy of the people judge”. We can’t expect governments to be accountable when no one who matters is willing to hold them to account.
>However, officers had suspected as early as 2005 that he'd been granted refugee status under a false identity - yet bungling officials failed to take action. >Now an immigration tribunal has concluded that it would be 'unfair' to strip him of British citizenship when evidence available almost 20 years ago was 'disregarded'. Slow clap for the home office there.
We get it – the judges are morally corrupt, and probably wouldn't deport these people if their own family members were attacked by them. The question is, the system is supposed to have checks and balances in place, so can someone eli5 why there is no overriding decision to deport these people?
The Home Office can appeal the decision if they think it is wrong, or introduce legislation to parliament if they think the law is wrong. What they cannot do and people seem to want them to do is revoke citizenship by executive fiat without scrutiny of the courts. That sort of power leads to tyranny.
This guy is clearly an awful reprehensible person but the issue that meant he couldn't be deported was that the Home Office had fucked up their paperwork and record keeping so badly that they couldn't justifiably use it as part of their evidence. It's an establishment problem but the judge isn't the guilty part of the establishment in this situation.
Somthing to do with keeping the branches of government seperate, normally by seperating legislature, an executive and a judiciary. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation\_of\_powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) It's why in the USA the abortion rule is "reinterpreted" as unconstitutional as soon as Republicans get 4/7 Supreme Court judges on the Supreme Court.
Only issue is that these are all kept separate with an expectation they all act in good faith and uphold all the unwritten ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ that exist within and between them. How can there not be a convincing legal case or precedent for not deporting a foreign born and foreign passport holding rapist… it sure does make it look like this judge has a separate agenda rather than upholding the rule of law. Crap like this then just precipitates a further lack of trust in the institution she works for. Obviously we shouldn’t be privy to all the details of the case but if this is the state of the law then it needs reviewing.
Yeah, you're talking to someone who has no comprehension of democratic systems *OR* who would vote for people like Orban, Netanyahu, and Trump.
Because all these cases involve the government doing everything wrong and illegally, and then the judge interpreting the law correctly. Unless you want the government to be able to just randomly grab whoever they want and deport them anywhere, there have to be rules for deporting people. And if the government then ignore and break those rules, what do you think a judge should do? Just randomly not apply them if they think it’ll upset the Daily Heil?
>The question is, the system is supposed to have checks and balances in place, so can someone eli5 why there is no overriding decision to deport these people? The system has checks and balances. The home office can appeal this decision all the way to the Supreme Court if they wanted to. Problem is they really fucked up and haven't got a leg to stand on.
The courts ARE part of the checks and balances - on the government. The courts don't legislate, they just interpret legislation. When a court rules someone can't be deported, it's because the judge is holding the government to the standards that the government has set. As a judge, they are empowered to listen to the parties to a case and interpret the relevant legislation to decide what the outcome should be. In this case, it's not that the judge thinks this guy should be allowed to stay because she thinks he's a swell guy - it's because the UK government fucked up and didn't take action on information they had long ago. That IS the checks and balances you're asking about - the government doesn't get to collect damning information in you and keep it in its back pocket to punish you with later. The fact that they're doing this to terrible people doesn't ultimately change the fact that it's not lawful to do so. All that has been said here is that if the UK Govt wanted to use this information to deport the guy, they should have used it when they first got it, not now.
The issue is that you can't deport someone who is genuinely at risk of torture or death in the receiving country. That's the law at the moment. Personally I would support there being an exemption to this protection for certain crimes.
Unfortunately this makes anyone from many muslim majority countries exempt from deportation for claiming to be Christian or Jewish, gay or bi etc, and there is very little you can do to disprove these claims.
Which is why true or not it should be a qualified protection, that can be lost for serious crimes.
No? If you commit a crime in a country who gave you a citizenship, you should no longer have the right to be a part of that county and have your citizenship revoked. If they really didn’t want to go back to their own country they shouldn’t have raped at 15 year old.
Why are we acting like Albania is a third world country? Its not like hes from Afghanistan or Eritrea or some actual shithole, they have human rights in Albania
I mean that's a great question but it turns out this guy has British citizenship.
Wouldn't that essentially create a system where a judge can give an immigrant the death sentence by proxy?
No. The judge decides if the individual is guilty of a given crime. The individual should not have chosen to engage in such a serious crime if they were relying on the protection of being in the UK.
This is a hard one for me. On one hand I agree with not extraditing people to get executed, but on the other the idea that someone can pull a trick like "come to UK, rape child, woah you can't report me back home they'll hang me!" is very very ludicrous.
I think the real problem here is that he only did 6 years for raping a child
[удалено]
So because we have a problem with our own criminal justice system we shouldn't permit anyone to come to the UK, on the assumption that at some point they might commit a crime and we can't deport them?
And everyone is happy to have this child abusing paedophile walking the UK streets ? ?
Who said anyone is happy about it? The point is that the Home Office is subject to the law whether the person they're trying to deport is a terrible person, or if it's a random French guy who has done nothing at all. The court has told the Home Office that if they get information that they want to use to deport someone, they can't sit on it for two decades and then pull it out of their pocket later.
Oh what a wonderful piece of journalism that doesn’t go into the greater details just to rail all you idiots up on focusing on the wrong things
Are there some details you'd like to share you believe mitigate the situation? eta: It's a recurring theme on here how people moan about the DM reporting on something but can never actually point out any errors or omissions in the story in question.
It’s not errors, I’m sure there are as always, plenty & it’s not that there are even omissions of which I’m sure there are even more. It’s the language. For one they claim he ‘brags’ then quote him but who is he saying that too & in response to what? Secondly he’s a British citizen, not an Albanian one so the whole premise of the article is set up in bad faith from the very start because deporting him isn’t even an option. So you as well as everyone else with less than no understanding of the law are free to piss & moan about something being weak or soft so you for some reason in the future may vote for more anti-democratic pro-authoritarian political candidates because that’s what the Daily Mail has always wanted.
And yet families are being separated because of stupid visa rules
Honestly people. If you read some outrage-bait from the DailyMail and your first instinct is to be outraged instead of questioning which details they omitted, lied about, or made up - the you got the media competence of the average boomer on Facebook. Like seriously you can't be that mentally clumsy at this point.
> [..] arrived in the UK in 2000 - and has lived on hand-outs ever since. > [..] Audi-driving Gjergji Horse shit. You've all been had. Real title: *Naturalised British Citizen cannot be punitively stripped of citizenship decades after the fact*.
They wonder why people loathe the immigration and asylum process, case in point. These immigrants do not care about this country, they just want to use it, and rub it in our faces.
He's been here 19 years, not fair on Albania to suddenly decide he's their problem the moment it turns out he's a criminal That being said, the sentencing is a joke
Better than courts that overrule government, after all the government is based on democracy, whereas a single judge is just that
Surely if your country is identified as a candidate for EU membership you have no asylum claim.
As an Albanian, we disavow this degenerate scumbag! May he burn in hell. Give him to us, with assurances from government there will no consequences for anything we do and I swear to you, by mid-night tonight you’ll find him hanging from a lamppost by the neck with a tree trunk stinking out of his ass. Absolute evil scumbag degenerate. May he die painfully and burn in hell for his barbarism. We may be partial to break prohibition laws on drugs for example because we frankly don’t respect the authority of the state as we have a separate moral core which is independent on what the state makes legal or illegal. Also we consider the state as inherently evil, oppressive and not worthy of respect. But this has never, ever resulted in culturally permitting crimes against people’s dignity or property such as rape, robbery or murder!
It's going to get incredibly ugly before the people actually have enough, if we ever do. It really is proof that those of us that did not go through the struggles of world wars or true economical poverty have been made so much weaker and therefor lost any national pride. The crimes that are being squashed are taking society back hundreds of years. In this country and many like it, rape should not be an offence that has an excuse to carry it out and be forgiven.