Road rules1 min ago
Judge Overrules Theresa May !
What planet is this judge from.
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tonyav. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Is it the case thiat this man has never had a trial?
If he is a threat then convict him. It should be for a jury to send him to prison, not an Home Secretary.
The Judge is following the law which has been created and approved by all of Parliament, not the whim of someone trying to i press the electorate
If he is a threat then convict him. It should be for a jury to send him to prison, not an Home Secretary.
The Judge is following the law which has been created and approved by all of Parliament, not the whim of someone trying to i press the electorate
The judge is from planet earth and is merely making judicial decisions as he is paid to do.
This is a “bail vs remand in custody” argument. The Bail Act is quite clear: everybody is entitled to bail unless it can be shown that there is a good reason to believe that they may:
(a) Abscond from the proceedings and the jurisdiction of the court
(b) Commit further offences if released
(c) Interfere with the judicial process [this usually means interfering with witnesses]
A “good reason to believe” is not defined but is a matter for the court hearing the application to determine. But it means that some evidence to support the “good reason to believe” has to be forthcoming. “I don’t like the look of his face” is not sufficient.
Mr Justice Irwin who heard the bail application was not convinced that the risk of Mr N2 absconding justified his detention. He imposed conditions on his bail to mitigate what risks he did accept. If the Home Secretary wants the power to determine bail decisions herself she should table a Bill n Parliament. (She may find it difficult to see such legislation enacted. Not forming a “properly convened tribunal”, laws that allow politicians to make judicial decisions usually fall foul of Human Rights legislation). If, on the other hand, she wants the Bail Act made more stringent for certain classes of applicants she should apply to amend the 1976 Act.
This is a “bail vs remand in custody” argument. The Bail Act is quite clear: everybody is entitled to bail unless it can be shown that there is a good reason to believe that they may:
(a) Abscond from the proceedings and the jurisdiction of the court
(b) Commit further offences if released
(c) Interfere with the judicial process [this usually means interfering with witnesses]
A “good reason to believe” is not defined but is a matter for the court hearing the application to determine. But it means that some evidence to support the “good reason to believe” has to be forthcoming. “I don’t like the look of his face” is not sufficient.
Mr Justice Irwin who heard the bail application was not convinced that the risk of Mr N2 absconding justified his detention. He imposed conditions on his bail to mitigate what risks he did accept. If the Home Secretary wants the power to determine bail decisions herself she should table a Bill n Parliament. (She may find it difficult to see such legislation enacted. Not forming a “properly convened tribunal”, laws that allow politicians to make judicial decisions usually fall foul of Human Rights legislation). If, on the other hand, she wants the Bail Act made more stringent for certain classes of applicants she should apply to amend the 1976 Act.
Not according to Mr Justice Irwin he isn't. There has to be evidence to support a claim that he will commit further offences if released. Apparently that evidence is not forthcoming.
I quite agree that he should be removed but the Home Secretary should have ensured that all his avenues of appeal were exhausted before he was released. Then he could have been taken straight from the prison to Heathrow. After all, he has been inside for "several years".
Where I strongly disagree with the judge is his banning the publication of details. We don't know who this creature is, where he is or what he's done in the past. It's not been explained why we should not know. And that's a travesty.
I quite agree that he should be removed but the Home Secretary should have ensured that all his avenues of appeal were exhausted before he was released. Then he could have been taken straight from the prison to Heathrow. After all, he has been inside for "several years".
Where I strongly disagree with the judge is his banning the publication of details. We don't know who this creature is, where he is or what he's done in the past. It's not been explained why we should not know. And that's a travesty.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.