Amber Rudd contempt of court?
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/14/ho...
Is it appropriate for the Home Secretary to ignore a High Court order?
Is it appropriate for the Home Secretary to ignore a High Court order?
AW111 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/14/ho...
Is it appropriate for the Home Secretary to ignore a High Court order?
Whether it is appropriate or not depends on whether you agree with our form of democracy. Apart from Mrs W no one is above the law, and even she is only in principle. Is it appropriate for the Home Secretary to ignore a High Court order?
Rudd doesn't appear to have much grasp of her role. She was rather slow in defending judges for judging, ie following the law that the government, over the years, had enacted.
I've got the feeling, though, that even she isn't this stupid and there's more to this than is being reported.
I did cases for various government departments for many years and saw an attitude of literal contempt for the courts develop amongst Ministers and civil servants. A Judge told me that whereas he and his colleagues used to accept what Government counsel told them on trust, now they often insist on witness statements and supporting documents because they have been lied to by Government departments so often.
The Home Office flouted Court orders in another case earlier this year -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/23/ju...
The first Home Secretary to be found to have committed Contempt of Court was, IIRC, Ken Baker in the 90s . That case concerned IIRC removal of someone to what was then Zaire (now DRC).
The rule is the same for everyone - Government Minister or not. If a Court makes an order, you obey the order. if you want to dispute the order, you may be able to to challenge it in various ways, but until your challenge has been made and has succeeded, the order stands.
The Home Office flouted Court orders in another case earlier this year -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/23/ju...
The first Home Secretary to be found to have committed Contempt of Court was, IIRC, Ken Baker in the 90s . That case concerned IIRC removal of someone to what was then Zaire (now DRC).
The rule is the same for everyone - Government Minister or not. If a Court makes an order, you obey the order. if you want to dispute the order, you may be able to to challenge it in various ways, but until your challenge has been made and has succeeded, the order stands.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 16th September 06:12
Derek Smith said:
...Apart from Mrs W no one is above the law, and even she is only in principle.
If by Mrs W you mean the Queen, then you are mistaken, as she is emphatically not above the law, not even "in principle" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The Civil War established that position, and the position was re affirmed after the Revolution of 1688. The Home Secretary and other Ministers act in the name of the Queen, and they are subject to the decisions of the Courts. The fundamental basis of the rule of law is that no one is above it.Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 16th September 19:13
Oh pretty please can this happen. Best mental image all day. I add that quite often the Home Office disobeys orders because of disorganisation and incompetence rather than deliberately. Years of austerity, and years of the spectacularly incompetent Teresa May as Home Secretary and PM, following on from years of maladministration under the Coalition and New Labour, have left the Home Office in disarray, and a lot of the immigration stuff is outsourced to contractors that have time and again been found wanting, but which continue to receive large chunks of public money. I did a lot of Court gigs for the Home Office in the period 2008-2013. Obtaining instructions or getting decisions by the HO made was always difficult. Delay, obfuscation, and people ducking responsibility were widespread. I used to stand in Court wearily receiving b
king after bking from judges (not directed at me, but at the Home Office). I dutifully passed on all the bkings (by phone or email, because there was never anyone from the HO in Court), but I might as well have been taking to cats.
Recently I have tended to be working for parties in dispute with various Government departments, and the impression of austerity-fuelled disarray across Government continues. Add to this Brexit, which has paralysed much of Government, and the general paralysis which affects a Government that lacks a mandate and has no credibility of firm leadership. Many projects are on hold, and the best staff have been deployed to Brexit stuff (sadly not the best Ministers - David Davis, FFS!). Older colleagues who did Government legal work in the late 70s tell me that the situation now is similar to the situation in that era, and add that a toxic relationship between Ministers and Judges was also evident then. Back then, Lord Denning once hauled the Attorney General Sam Silkin QC into Court to express the Court's fury at some nonsense or other. Judges nowadays are perhaps too polite. They ought to have a few Ministers hauled into Court in person to explain the deficiencies of their departments, but this is unlikely to happen.
king after bking from judges (not directed at me, but at the Home Office). I dutifully passed on all the bkings (by phone or email, because there was never anyone from the HO in Court), but I might as well have been taking to cats.Recently I have tended to be working for parties in dispute with various Government departments, and the impression of austerity-fuelled disarray across Government continues. Add to this Brexit, which has paralysed much of Government, and the general paralysis which affects a Government that lacks a mandate and has no credibility of firm leadership. Many projects are on hold, and the best staff have been deployed to Brexit stuff (sadly not the best Ministers - David Davis, FFS!). Older colleagues who did Government legal work in the late 70s tell me that the situation now is similar to the situation in that era, and add that a toxic relationship between Ministers and Judges was also evident then. Back then, Lord Denning once hauled the Attorney General Sam Silkin QC into Court to express the Court's fury at some nonsense or other. Judges nowadays are perhaps too polite. They ought to have a few Ministers hauled into Court in person to explain the deficiencies of their departments, but this is unlikely to happen.
AW111 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/14/ho...
Is it appropriate for the Home Secretary to ignore a High Court order?
No, we have a tripartite government and separation of powers, she has to put it simply violated our constitution. Is it appropriate for the Home Secretary to ignore a High Court order?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
This is the same problem with Great Repeal Bill, it places the executive at the head of everything else.
Breadvan72 said:
Derek Smith said:
AW111 said:
...Apart from Mrs W no one is above the law, and even she is only in principle.
If by Mrs W you mean the Queen, then you are mistaken, as she is emphatically not above the law, not even "in principle" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The Civil War established that position, and the position was re affirmed after the Revolution of 1688. The Home Secretary and other Ministers act in the name of the Queen, and they are subject to the decisions of the Courts. The fundamental basis of the rule of law is that no one is above it.The process for the police is that there aren't any. They could not, at the time, charge the monarch.
I don't think you can use the beheading of Chas as an example of the monarch not being above the law.
When was the last time a monarch was taken to court? I accept that there are supposed procedures, away from the police of course, where they could be prosecuted, but they never are. It must be that they have been the most law-abiding people ever or else they've covered their tracks well.
It would be a constitutional crisis if Mrs W was ever dragged before the courts. It won't happen.
I take the point that Rudd ignoring a court order, if that's what she's done, is more likely to be due to her being inept than a deliberate act, but then with her you never know. She might be suggesting that May could not deport Abu Hamza but she is made of something stronger.
Home Secretary, one of the great offices of state, has been politicised over the years. The worst when I was in the police was Blunkett, but that should be read int he knowledge that May was after I retired. I was told by an ex colleague that Johnson was a breath of fresh air which made the switch to May all the more depressing.
Talking to a City police lawyer, he reckoned that it was a tragedy that Quentin Hogg didn't move to HomSec under Thatcher. I didn't really know what to make of that. Was it that he didn't reckon him as Lord Chancellor?
What a waste of money spending thousands on repugnant lawyers arguing on both sides about one Afghan. Jesus Christ. Also acting as a "carer" for his father in the UK and probably guzzling the free money that entails.
The Taliban don't threaten to behead people, they just do it. He just would prefer to live in the UK.
The Taliban don't threaten to behead people, they just do it. He just would prefer to live in the UK.
Dromedary66 said:
What a waste of money spending thousands on repugnant lawyers arguing on both sides about one Afghan. Jesus Christ. Also acting as a "carer" for his father in the UK and probably guzzling the free money that entails.
The Taliban don't threaten to behead people, they just do it. He just would prefer to live in the UK.
If Jesus Christ were a thing he would look down on you and think what a The Taliban don't threaten to behead people, they just do it. He just would prefer to live in the UK.
Edited by Tryke3 on Saturday 16th September 10:48
Merc 450 said:
Atomic12C said:
Yes.
Yes it's a start, the clues in his name,definitley sounds more Afghan than English. How could an Afghan end up in the UK anyway it can't be the nearest safe country surelyIf our HS can ignore the courts why cant i?
she is a f
king shamblesbhstewie said:
hstewie said: It is a little worrying when the government ignores the courts who, agree or disagree, are independent.
I suspect those who think it's a good thing think so because of their views on the issue rather than because of the principle.
And right on cue, along come the posters who care less about the law of the land than their views on deportation. I suspect those who think it's a good thing think so because of their views on the issue rather than because of the principle.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff