There is a great British legacy and tradition of being one of the fairest and just societies in the world observing a system of 'rule of law'. Such is the legacy that many legal systems around the world have been heavily influenced by the British system.
But many British people are now becoming increasingly disillusioned through their dealings with the British system of democracy and law.
Britain is now ranked 13th out of 99 legal systems in the world. Even in Europe it is ranked 9th out of 24 countries.
The rule of law depends on people who are subject to such laws being able to understand how those laws apply to them. When laws and changes are deliberately hidden through over complexity or confusion then they are being used purely as tools of oppression.
"In a society governed by the rule of law, the government and its officials and agents are subject to and held accountable under the law" In the Uk with the increasing withdrawal of appeal rights and restrictions on access to legal aid it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold the government to account.
Laws should be clear, publicised, stable, and just; applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
Current UK immigration law is anything but! The laws and current changes to the laws are laid out in such a way that the very people that these laws and rules apply would face great difficulty understanding what changes are taking place and how they may be impacted.
One such example is the changes released on the 10th July 2014 the day before the MM ruling in the Court of Appeal.
In these changes I find it very difficult to fully understand what changes are really being made despite in my professional life having many years experience dealing with complex legal contracts on a daily basis.
My first concern in these changes is that many are being applied retrospectively especially those affecting spouse visas.
"The changes .............of this statement take effect on 28 July 2014 and apply to all applications to which paragraphs 276ADE to 276DH and Appendix FM apply (or can be applied by virtue of the Immigration Rules), and to any other ECHR Article 8 claims (save for those from foreign criminals), and which are decided on or after that date."
“A279. Paragraphs 398-399D apply to all immigration decisions made further to applications under Part 8 and paragraphs 276A-276D where a decision is made on or after 28 July 2014, irrespective of the date the application was made.”.
They have also brought in a new justification for decisions
"....in doing so also reflects the relevant public interest considerations"
where one of those considerations is now
"controlling immigration to safeguard the UK’s economic well-being."
There are also changes to definitions of why exemptions can be considered
"“insurmountable obstacles” means the very significant difficulties which would be faced by the applicant or their partner in continuing their family life together outside the UK and which could not be overcome or would entail very serious hardship for the applicant or their partner.”
But one of the most worrying and confusing parts is especially for all those 500+ in UK application that put on hold pending the out come of the MM appeal.
"7.19. The non-suspensive appeals provision, inserted by section 17(3) of the Immigration Act 2014, allows the Secretary of State to certify an appeal where an individual is liable to deportation when, despite the appeals process not having been begun or not having been exhausted, removal of a person to the country or territory to which they are proposed to be removed, pending the outcome of an appeal in relation to their claim, would not be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, for example the individual would not face a real risk of serious irreversible harm if removed."
Does this mean that the Home Secretary can now remove people from the UK even while they are appealing as first announced in the Immigration Act 2014 Summary of Provisions?
"Clause 12: Place from which an appeal may be brought or continued
An appellant can remain in the UK to bring or continue his appeal if the original claim was made whilst the person was in the UK. If however, the Secretary of State has certified the appeal as ‘clearly unfounded’ or a person can be removed to a safe third country, the appeal can only take place once the person has left the UK.
In the case of someone liable to deportation who raises a human rights claim the default is to remove them from the UK by certifying the appeal on the basis that they would not face, before the appeals process is exhausted ‘a real risk of serious irreversible harm if removed to [that] country or territory’. The right of appeal is then exercised from abroad."
Or does this only apply to criminals?
This is a very worrying time for those in the UK impacted by the MM ruling.
Have their rights been totally trampled on?!
Their decisions are further delayed just so these new rules of the Immigration Act 2014 can be applied retrospectively.
The timing of these changes is very worrying.
First it has been rushed through in the last 2 weeks of parliament in the rush before the summer break.
Secondly it come into effect at the start of the Courts summer break making any injunctions against deportations much more difficult to obtain until the courts are back in October.
Will we see the Government attempt mass deportations over the summer period?
Are they so heartless and so determined to destroy the British Legal System!!!!!!!!