Should Such Scum, Be Allowed Legal Aid?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6039089/Three-men-Rochdale-child-sex-abuse-gang-lose-citizenship-appeal.html

/// Figures released under Freedom of Information laws show Rauf was granted £282,370, Khan £282,289 and Aziz £195,277 for their unsuccessful court battle. ///

/// But the figures are set to rise as three of the men are spending tens of thousands of pounds paying lawyers working on their bid to beat deportation. ///

Or is it money well spent if we remove them from this country?

[THECORBYLOON]

The men could not be deported if they were British. The Home Secretary issued orders that they were to be stripped of their British citizenship.

The men appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) who then upheld the original decision. Then they went the Upper Tribunal (UT) to appeal the FTT decision.

The UT upheld the FTT decision so the men appealed to the Court of Appeal but lost their case.

Now that the Court of Appeal has confirmed the Home Secretary's decision, they are no longer British and as a result, can be deported.

If that order is made, the men can then appeal against that decision.

It's not clear to me why the decisions to strip citizenship and to deport could not have been made at the same time. If they could have been, it's also not clear to me whether appeals against the separate decisions could have been heard at the same times thus shortening the whole process.

[pumpjack]

no !!!

havent looked yet but i bet many here on AB say yes.

[jim360]

I suspect, Corby, that there's a technical reason behind the two appeals not being heard at the same time, but in any case the three men were bound to have pursued the case as far as possible, all the way to the ECtHR -- presumably, the European Court would only have been able to hear the case against deportation, rather than loss of citizenship, as only with the deportation order would Human Rights issues potentially enter.

Clearly I have no desire that the men win any appeal, and, as I said earlier (with some understatement), it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. But the rules in place are there for a reason: they protect the innocent, and -- by definition -- that sometimes means that the guilty will be able to prolong the justice they deserve.

It sucks, but it is better to live in that kind of world, I suggest, than one in which human rights are a luxury afforded only to the privileged few.

[Theland]

In these days of austerity and food banks, disgraceful they can drain the public purse.

[david small]

Given the position of authority I’d disappear them permanently.

[sandyRoe]

Had there been no attempt to deport them after they'd served their time that money would still be safe in the public purse.

[david small]

The money is now safe in the shyster lawyers banks.

[LadyCG]

God almighty, I truly despair at how much money we throw away on specimens likes this who will never contribute to our society, never abide by our laws, nor respect our hardworking, tax-paying, decent, upstanding citizens, our women or our children.

When are we going to stop being grovelling apologists and kick these filthy beasts out, without spending endless fortunes defending their "human rights" and making a laughing stock of ourselves?

God, we are such a bunch of suckers!

[pumpjack]

When are we going to stop being grovelling apologists and kick these filthy beasts out, without spending endless fortunes defending their "human rights" and making a laughing stock of ourselves?

God, we are such a bunch of suckers

but still most of you will vote for the liberal left...suck it up !!

[jim360]

I'm happy to be the kind of sucker that preserves a system that protects individuals against the excesses of the state, where it's needed. And, by necessity, even when it's not actually needed, the ability has to exist for people to be able to *try* and defend those rights.

[andy-hughes]

jim - // I'm happy to be the kind of sucker that preserves a system that protects individuals against the excesses of the state, where it's needed. And, by necessity, even when it's not actually needed, the ability has to exist for people to be able to *try* and defend those rights. //

I entirely agree.

The law operates without emotion, as it should and it presumes innocence until proof of guilt.

To read some of the hysteria on here, there are those who would execute people for having a beard and praying on a Friday.

[naomi24]

Andy-Hughes. I’ve
never read anything remotely like that here. You wouldn’t be making it up would you?

No, they shouldn’t get legal aid - or any other benefit. This country is almost its own worst enemy. Almost but not quite.

[jim360]

The benefits of legal aid are best seen when comparing to, say, the US system. The amount of miscarriages of justice that occur there, essentially because legal aid is very difficult to obtain (properly) in practice, has led to great numbers of entirely innocent people being obliged to serve jail time, or even time on Death Row (and, of course, some even executed) for crimes they did not commit.

It's more complicated than just a lack of legal aid -- the system of justice in the US is rotten in so many ways -- but I would far rather have a system that the guilty can abuse than one where the innocent cannot clear their name. This kind of embarrassment is a price worth paying.

[Fatalbertfixer]

Why do we have so many routes of appeal.Says a lot about the legal system if they need three or four goes at the same case.I can understand one appeal but surely any more than that cant be justified.

[Theland]

It cost this country £10,000,000 to finally deport Abu Qatada after years of appeals.
But we have loads of money eh?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//Why do we have so many routes of appeal.Says a lot about the legal system if they need three or four goes at the same case.I can understand one appeal but surely any more than that cant be justified//

I think a system of appeal is a good thing and long since established in English common law. Don't know how deep the hierarchy is (three,four, five), but it ends up with the Supreme Court, doesn't it? Or is it the House of Lords? Thank God we've got expert comment on that question.

So many "routes of appeal" is another issue. To deal decently, but efficiently with criminals the UK needs to withdraw its assignation to the "European Convention on Human Rights" (isn't Turkey(!) also a signatory?) and to the lawyers' paradise the WankundPayolaFest called the ECHR.

Neither of which, by the way, are anything to do with the (expletives deleted) EU.

[THECORBYLOON]

If someone disagrees with a benefit decision, it can go through seven levels of Decision Makers/Tribunals/Courts deciding whether it's correct or no.

[THECORBYLOON]

I was wrong, it's eight.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I was talking about appellant courts in criminal convictions. But, hey, who knows?

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// has led to great numbers of entirely innocent people being obliged to serve jail time, ///

This has nothing to do with if they are guilty or not, these are and have served a prison sentence for their disgusting crimes.

This is about them appealing against them being deported from our country.

Do you want them to stay and before you answer this, just remember these three are taxi drivers and could if they remain in this country, be picking up your daughter or granddaughter after a night out.