Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Should It Be Left Up To The Judge To Decide If This Monster Should Be Deported Or Not?
50 Answers
http://
I make no apologies for entering the first anti-Muslim post of the day, especially in this case.
I make no apologies for entering the first anti-Muslim post of the day, especially in this case.
Answers
Yes it does seem rather odd that some are prepared to defend people arriving here to seek "sanctuary" who then go on to commit serious offences of violence. If I was seeking shelter in a strange country I would try to convince my hosts that I was worth sheltering. To that end the very last thing I would do would be to attack my wife with a hammer. But as has been said,...
14:21 Tue 02nd May 2017
“As deportation is not an option for a ABH charge the judge had no option to deport him.”
It is not the offence that determines deportation, Eddie, but the sentence. A sentence of 12 months or more should see deportation:
Under Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in respect of a non- British criminal where:
• the criminal was convicted in the UK and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, and the period of imprisonment is 12 months or more, and
• the sentence is a single sentence for a single conviction, it must not be an aggregate sentence or consecutive sentences, and
• the criminal was serving that sentence on or after 1 August 2008, and
• the criminal had not been served with a notice of decision to deport before 1 August 2008.
There are exceptions to this and one of them is where the person convicted has raised a claim for asylum. Mr Akram has an outstanding asylum claim lodged and this has been outstanding since before 2013.
The process is that following conviction the judge recommends (or otherwise) deportation to the Secretary of State. He then acts in accordance with the 2007 Act I explained above. In this case representations were made to the judge regarding Mr Akram’s asylum claim and the judge declined to recommend deportation.
There’s one other minor point of clarification:
“The only time a case can be 'referred up' for sentencing is if a magistrates court decides it's sentencing power (max 6 months in jail) is insufficient. The case would then be' referred up' to the High Court.
This case was already at the High court.”
Committals for sentencing when the Magistrates’ Court considers its powers insufficient are made to the Crown Court, never the High Court. Additionally, this matter was dealt with at the Crown Court. There is a considerable difference between the functions of the Crown Court and the High Court.
It is not the offence that determines deportation, Eddie, but the sentence. A sentence of 12 months or more should see deportation:
Under Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in respect of a non- British criminal where:
• the criminal was convicted in the UK and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, and the period of imprisonment is 12 months or more, and
• the sentence is a single sentence for a single conviction, it must not be an aggregate sentence or consecutive sentences, and
• the criminal was serving that sentence on or after 1 August 2008, and
• the criminal had not been served with a notice of decision to deport before 1 August 2008.
There are exceptions to this and one of them is where the person convicted has raised a claim for asylum. Mr Akram has an outstanding asylum claim lodged and this has been outstanding since before 2013.
The process is that following conviction the judge recommends (or otherwise) deportation to the Secretary of State. He then acts in accordance with the 2007 Act I explained above. In this case representations were made to the judge regarding Mr Akram’s asylum claim and the judge declined to recommend deportation.
There’s one other minor point of clarification:
“The only time a case can be 'referred up' for sentencing is if a magistrates court decides it's sentencing power (max 6 months in jail) is insufficient. The case would then be' referred up' to the High Court.
This case was already at the High court.”
Committals for sentencing when the Magistrates’ Court considers its powers insufficient are made to the Crown Court, never the High Court. Additionally, this matter was dealt with at the Crown Court. There is a considerable difference between the functions of the Crown Court and the High Court.
## Some on here will not be happy until we return to the days of deportation ( transportation) for any offence of theft of an artical worth over a shilling.
Count me in as one of the Eddie, as most of the Asylum seekers know we are a soft touch in this Country unfortunately!
No apologies needed AOG, for your post.
Count me in as one of the Eddie, as most of the Asylum seekers know we are a soft touch in this Country unfortunately!
No apologies needed AOG, for your post.
Yes it does seem rather odd that some are prepared to defend people arriving here to seek "sanctuary" who then go on to commit serious offences of violence. If I was seeking shelter in a strange country I would try to convince my hosts that I was worth sheltering. To that end the very last thing I would do would be to attack my wife with a hammer. But as has been said, the rules that would apply in most other countries don't seem to apply here in the UK and many of those seeking asylum know that only too well.
Since you are thanking people - did you miss this?
//Since there is no mention of Mr Akrim's faith in the piece, it would be an assumption that he is a Muslim.
I would assume that your issues with Mr Akrim are connected with his behaviour in this instance, rather than the fact that he may or may not be a Muslim?
If that is the case, there is no need to offer an apology for 'the first anti-Muslim post of the day ...' since I can find nothing anti-Muslim either in your link, or your post. //
//Since there is no mention of Mr Akrim's faith in the piece, it would be an assumption that he is a Muslim.
I would assume that your issues with Mr Akrim are connected with his behaviour in this instance, rather than the fact that he may or may not be a Muslim?
If that is the case, there is no need to offer an apology for 'the first anti-Muslim post of the day ...' since I can find nothing anti-Muslim either in your link, or your post. //
In this case I think that once the woman has divorced him ( assuming she does) or the marriage is annulled he should lose his residence visa. I am also worried about how a women can be so stupid that she is prepared to marry and live with a man who advertised on facebook for a wife just to get a visa! People in this situation normally never see each other again after they leave the registry office, it is a straight cash transaction.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Other Sports5 mins ago
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.