ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CAN'T BE DEPORTED BECAUSE HE HAS A PET CAT

[Daanyeer]

Illegal immigrant can't be deported because he has a PET CAT, claims May in conference speechMrs May said the Human Rights Act 'needs to go' to restore 'sanity' in the UK immigration system

By Emily Allen


4th October 2011



Catgate was the talk of the Tory party conference today as Theresa May cited the case of an illegal immigrant she claimed could not be deported because of a pet cat.
The Home Secretary used the case as an example of the problems caused by 'misinterpretation' of provisions in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a family life.
But Mrs May's claims were refuted by a spokeswoman for the Judicial Office, which represents senior judges, who said the ruling in the case had nothing to do with the cat, reportedly called Maya.

The case at the centre of the row, which was quickly dubbed Catgate, involved an immigrant facing deportation from Britain who cited ownership of a pet cat with his girlfriend as part of his legal battle to stay in the country three years ago.



The man, a Bolivian who came to the UK as a student, gave cat ownership as one of 'many details' to prove the long-term nature of his relationship, his solicitor Barry O'Leary said when the case first came to light in October 2009.
But the solicitor insisted that his client had 'never' argued that he should be allowed to stay on the grounds of the cat. Nor had he been allowed to stay because of this, he said.
The Home Office had appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal against a judgment allowing the man to stay in the country.

Mr O'Leary said at the time: 'We were never arguing on the basis that the cat was material. We argued that there is a Home Office policy they should have applied in this case because of the long term nature of the couple's relationship.
'The immigration judge found that was the reason the appeal should be allowed.'
But giving her judgment against the Home Office appeal, senior immigration judge Judith Gleeson joked that the cat 'need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice'.
The determination also referred to the 'inappropriate weight placed on the appellant having to leave behind not only his partner but also their joint cat' but added that, 'more significantly' the Home Secretary 'argued that the Immigration Judge had erred in law in applying a withdrawn policy which no longer applied at the date of decision'.


Neither the man, nor his cat, were named in the judgment, delivered in December 2008.
Today, a spokeswoman for the Judicial Office reissued the statement which it first released two years ago, denying the cat's role in the decision.
'This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK,' she said.
'That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision.'
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke told ITV News that he expected to win any bet with the Home Secretary over the cat case: 'I heard Theresa refer to it and I sat there with a Victor Meldrew reaction. I thought: 'I can't believe it'.'

In her keynote speech to the conference, Mrs May said that problems were caused by 'misinterpretation' of provisions in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The first sentence of the article states that everyone has 'the right to respect for his private and family life', while the second allows the authorities to over-ride this right on certain grounds, including to uphold public safety and prevent crime.

'The right to a family life is not an absolute right and it must not be used to drive a coach and horses through our immigration system,' said Mrs May.

'The meaning of Article 8 should no longer be perverted. So I will write it into our immigration rules that when foreign nationals are convicted of a criminal offence or breach our immigration laws, when they should be removed, they will be removed.'

And she added: 'I remain of the view that the Human Rights Act needs to go.'

And she said that the UK authorities must not be 'constrained from removing foreign nationals who, in all sanity, should have no right to be here'.

But Mr Clarke told the fringe meeting that Mrs May had made clear that 'there is nothing wrong with Article 8 if you read it all'.

He added: 'She says British courts have been paying too much attention to the first half and not enough attention to the second half. If she is able to alter the immigration rules, that's fine. I'm quite content with that.'

The Justice Secretary defended the Human Rights Act and the European Convention, which he said were rooted in a long British tradition dating back for centuries.

'The British are great believers in human rights. We invented the idea. It goes back to Magna Carta,' he said.

'We have lectured the world on human rights and the human rights that British authors put in the European Convention are things that matter to us - the rules against torture and against someone losing their liberty without proper process of law.'

The Human Rights Act introduced by Labour in 1998 incorporated fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

The Conservatives promised in their manifesto at the last election that they would replace it with a British Bill of Rights, but this is opposed by their Liberal Democrat coalition partners. Shortly after the election last May, it was announced that a commission would review the working of the Act.

Mr Clarke today said that human rights issues were 'bandied about in an extraordinary way' in the current debate over the retention of the Human Rights Act.

'Human rights are very important - we fought a war over human rights,' he said. 'What we don't want is trivialising of it in debate and trivial use of it in minor decisions, including by immigration officials, if that is what they are actually doing.'

He added: 'I will find out from Theresa what these examples are that have upset her and I will probably find that she agrees with me that it is a piece of misinterpretation of the Act which is giving the whole thing a bad reputation.

'We should be in fact in favour of human rights and individual liberties in the modern world, not in any way resiling from this country's traditional support for it.'


GRIEVING FATHER WELCOMES CHANGE TO RULES
A father whose daughter was knocked down and killed by a failed asylum seeker has welcomed Theresa May's rule change.
Paul Houston's daughter Amy, 12, died after uninsured driver Aso Mohammed Ibrahim ran her down in his car. Ibrahim was allowed to remain in the UK by claiming deportation would be against his human rights of being allowed a family life.

Mr Houston, 41, said: 'I don't think anyone would disagree with what Theresa May has said. I am very encouraged by what she said and just hope now she puts her words into actions.

'For too long, the Human Rights Act has been abused by criminals, failed asylum seekers, terrorist and paedophiles - all the wrong people in society. It is about time the Government put the viewpoints and the rights of the victims over the rights of the criminals.
Amy Houston's father Paul Houston with partner Carole Nevins. Mr Houston has welcomed today's news
'I have always said that it seems to be a charter for failed asylum seekers, criminals and terrorists and needs to be looked at. The act needs to benefit the innocent and the vulnerable as it was intended to do'.
Mr Houston's seven-year-old battle to have Ibrahim, 33, deported ended in heartache earlier this year when judges ruled kicking the failed asylum seeker out of the country would breach his human rights.
They said that as Iraqi Kurd Ibrahim had married an English woman and had two children - a boy and a girl - since the accident in 2003, his right to family life under the Human Rights Act meant he must stay in the UK - despite having a string of criminal convictions.

Ibrahim arrived in Britain hidden in the back of a lorry in January 2001. His application for asylum was refused and a subsequent appeal in November 2002 failed, but he was never sent home.
In November 2003, while serving a nine-month driving ban for not having insurance or a licence, he ploughed into Amy near her mother's home in Blackburn, Lancashire.

He ran away, leaving her conscious and trapped beneath the wheels of his black Rover. Six hours later her father had to take the heart-breaking decision to turn off her life-support system.

But despite leaving Amy to die, Ibrahim was jailed for just four months after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.

Since his release from prison he has accrued a string of further convictions, including more driving offences, harassment and cautions for burglary and theft.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1ZpSvam00