https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status ... 27872?s=20
Nothing to see here
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Well, I'd imagine that most lawyers who spend their careers challenging Home Office decisions probably have fairly strong views about the Home Office (apart from the sharks, immigration law seems to be particularly vulnerable to that type of lawyer), but really their opinions aren't anything to do with it. Any situation that isn't resolved can end up in front of a court and it's out of their hands, that's the point. And it's not a given that they'd hold those opinions anyway, plenty of lawyers 'swap sides' throughout the course of their career.
You are not being fragile, you have put your finger on the exact reason this propaganda is so dangerous; we have a Government that is actively undermining the rule of law.discovolante wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:36 am... But anyway that aside, to have something like that come from an actual government department rather than just some useless government minister trying to cover their own back when they don't get their own way put me on edge a bit. I don't work in immigration but I challenge 'the state' in my job (OK local authorities, rock and roll) - it's not exactly riveting or glamorous - and the HO is effectively presenting people who do that kind of stuff as enemies of the state, rather than just representatives of the people whose lives and future it makes decisions about, which is worrying. Sorry for being so ridiculously fragile![]()
![]()
You don't need to apologise.
A Home Office video referring to immigration lawyers who provide legal advice to migrants as ‘activist lawyers’ is condemned by the Law Society of England and Wales.
"Attacks on the integrity of the legal profession undermine the rule of law,” said Law Society president Simon Davis.
“Solicitors advise their clients on their rights under the laws created by parliament. To describe lawyers who are upholding the law as ‘activist lawyers’ is misleading and dangerous.
“We should be proud that we live in a country where legal rights cannot be overridden without due process, and we should be proud that we have legal professionals who serve the rule of law.
“It is vital in a democratic society that each case is judged on merit and it is the role of the justice system to determine the validity of claims. This function is and must remain independent of government, media and public opinion.
"In countries where lawyers are unable to do their job for fear of intimidation the rule of law is weakened. The consequences are a society that becomes less safe, less stable and less fair.
“Britain's standing internationally is underpinned by our reputation for democracy, fair play and the independence of our legal system.
“This independence hinges on lawyers and judges not being hindered or intimidated in carrying out their professional duties and not being identified with their clients or their clients' causes.”
Now you are using reasoned argument to defend lawyers ensuring that justice is done and the rule of law obeyed. Can't you see why Johnson would hate that?kerrya1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:35 pmWhat is so wrong with activist lawyers anyway? If they see an injustice and use their professional skills to attempt to challenge it then why is that a problem? If they are wrong then surely they will lose their cases and precedent will be set - I could be all wrong about this IANAL.
In theory you could challenge a HO decision and in the meantime prevent the person from being removed from the country. Again I don't have experience in immigration law but from a housing perspective - you could apply for permission to appeal a decision to evict someone even if the case is not very strong, ask the court to order that they should not be evicted until the appeal process is over, and in the meantime the case will drag on for a good few months which would buy that person them more time (for whatever reason they needed that time for). Part of the delay will be due to the court system being too overloaded to deal with cases efficiently and court hearings taking months to go ahead.kerrya1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:35 pmWhat is so wrong with activist lawyers anyway? If they see an injustice and use their professional skills to attempt to challenge it then why is that a problem? If they are wrong then surely they will lose their cases and precedent will be set - I could be all wrong about this IANAL.
That might apply in cases such as landlord and tenant disputes, but not where one of the parties is part of the state itself. If the government of the day feels that it is being blocked by challenges in the courts, it has the power to provide extra resources to the courts to speed up decisions. Furthermore, it has no legitimate cause for complaint when decisions go against it as it is not just a party to the dispute - it makes up the rules which are being disputed, so cannot complain about the rules.discovolante wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:38 pmIn theory you could challenge a HO decision and in the meantime prevent the person from being removed from the country. Again I don't have experience in immigration law but from a housing perspective - you could apply for permission to appeal a decision to evict someone even if the case is not very strong, ask the court to order that they should not be evicted until the appeal process is over, and in the meantime the case will drag on for a good few months which would buy that person them more time (for whatever reason they needed that time for). Part of the delay will be due to the court system being too overloaded to deal with cases efficiently and court hearings taking months to go ahead.kerrya1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:35 pmWhat is so wrong with activist lawyers anyway? If they see an injustice and use their professional skills to attempt to challenge it then why is that a problem? If they are wrong then surely they will lose their cases and precedent will be set - I could be all wrong about this IANAL.
Of course the government has the power to properly fund the justice system so that it works efficiently, but it doesn't and there is a large backlog of cases in many courts. This is a result of (among other things) the selling off of the court estate and a poorly funded civil service and judiciary. If you're arguing that the HO has no right to complain about long waits for hearings (disregarding the necessary time for preparation/compliance with court directions) then I'd agree.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:14 amThat might apply in cases such as landlord and tenant disputes, but not where one of the parties is part of the state itself. If the government of the day feels that it is being blocked by challenges in the courts, it has the power to provide extra resources to the courts to speed up decisions.
Well, a lot of asylum rules are matters of international law. Aside from that, most disputes are either going to be about interpretations of the rules (what does 'likely' mean for example), or disputes of the facts (e.g. is this person who claims to be gay and therefore can't return to their institutionally homophobic home country actually gay?). You will get challenges that a piece of legislation isn't compatible with the ECHR or maybe that a statutory instrument is ultra vires, but I'm not sure how often that happens in immigration cases.Furthermore, it has no legitimate cause for complaint when decisions go against it as it is not just a party to the dispute - it makes up the rules which are being disputed, so cannot complain about the rules.
Activist Lawyer: (bangs table) Objection! OBJECTION!Woodchopper wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:35 amon TV its common to see examples of lawyers who creatively use legal technicalities to ensure that billionaires pay no tax, or that mafia…
That was the case, but courts can now consider the content of parliamentary debates etc if legislation is ambiguous, obscure, or might create an absurd situation. See here: https://www.iclr.co.uk/blog/reviews/rev ... on-online/
Well this is interesting because there are sort of two answers to that.
So as above you can see in the first para quoted the court is refusing to add to what has been legislated for already, and in the second is also putting this into context i.e. this is legislation is supposedly designed to protect people so it is reasonable to interpret in a way that achieves that goal (so, looking at Parliament's intention).I consider that there is no room to imply a further requirement which has to be satisfied, such as establishing a material change of circumstances since the refusal of an offer of accommodation pursuant to an earlier application...A person seeking to imply words into a Statute faces a difficult task: it is a course which can only be justified in clear and unusual circumstances. Where the implication involves imposing a further requirement, over and above express requirements imposed by the legislature, the task is, in my view, particularly difficult.
...
However, it seems likely that, at least in the great majority of cases involving successive applications, the time will come, often fairly soon, when one of the subsequent applications will be based on precisely the same facts as its immediate predecessor application, and will accordingly be treated as of no effect. Further, while clearly significant, the burden imposed on housing authorities by the prospect of successive applications can be exaggerated; on a subsequent investigation, they will often be able to rely, in many respects, on the results of their investigations on the earlier application. In any event, it should not cause particular surprise if the legislature has adopted a relatively indulgent attitude to people whom Part VII of the 1996 Act [homelessness law] is designed to protect, namely, the homeless.
I'm always ready to use 1000 words where 10 will doWoodchopper wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:26 pmYour answer was much better Disco. Anyway, the ‘activist lawyers’ argument doesn’t need to be legally correct. It’ll be viewed as a success so long as it gets lots of shares on Facebook
Going for the retweets today.discovolante wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:19 pmThey're at it again!
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status ... 46754?s=20
And getting plenty.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:55 pmGoing for the retweets today.discovolante wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:19 pmThey're at it again!
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status ... 46754?s=20