Suing governments for actions of asylum seekers?

[donkmeister]

Another week, another story of someone who really shouldn't have been allowed to stay causing life changing injuries or death.

Is there anything in law that would allow victims (or surviving family of the victims) of these imported criminals to sue the government who allowed them to stay? This seems like a different situation to a UK born criminal committing the same crimes in the UK... We're stuck with them, but for someone who has been given the green light to stay, someone in government has decided the risk balance of letting the illegal stay is fine. So there is some liability there, surely?

[LimmerickLad]

donkmeister said:

Another week, another story of someone who really shouldn't have been allowed to stay causing life changing injuries or death.

Is there anything in law that would allow victims (or surviving family of the victims) of these imported criminals to sue the government who allowed them to stay? This seems like a different situation to a UK born criminal committing the same crimes in the UK... We're stuck with them, but for someone who has been given the green light to stay, someone in government has decided the risk balance of letting the illegal stay is fine. So there is some liability there, surely?

1st function of a Govt is to protect its citizens and national security I would have thought....

[Mortarboard]

donkmeister said:

Another week, another story of someone who really shouldn't have been allowed to stay causing life changing injuries or death.

Is there anything in law that would allow victims (or surviving family of the victims) of these imported criminals to sue the government who allowed them to stay? This seems like a different situation to a UK born criminal committing the same crimes in the UK... We're stuck with them, but for someone who has been given the green light to stay, someone in government has decided the risk balance of letting the illegal stay is fine. So there is some liability there, surely?

Thats the problem that needs fixing, not more compo-faces in the Daily Mail

M.

[donkmeister]

Mortarboard said:

donkmeister said:

Another week, another story of someone who really shouldn't have been allowed to stay causing life changing injuries or death.

Is there anything in law that would allow victims (or surviving family of the victims) of these imported criminals to sue the government who allowed them to stay? This seems like a different situation to a UK born criminal committing the same crimes in the UK... We're stuck with them, but for someone who has been given the green light to stay, someone in government has decided the risk balance of letting the illegal stay is fine. So there is some liability there, surely?

Thats the problem that needs fixing, not more compo-faces in the Daily Mail

M.

I have worked with the civil service in the UK as well as with the European Commission. A common attribute of civil servants is that they hate making decisions. Make a decision, and if it's wrong then you get the blame. People go into civil service because the salary is alright and it's traditionally low pressure.

So, my thought process was that if no-one on government is taking responsibility for these horrific actions, then maybe shifting the balance from "let them all in because I don't want to be accused of racism just for doing my job" to "claim denied, I don't want to be held responsible for letting in a murdery rapist" would be a good thing.

[DeejRC]

A civil service or govt equivalent of Potters Bar. Yeah, that will never happen!

[jmn]

Suing the government for the actions of illegal immigrants is generally not legally viable under UK law due to the legal principle that public authorities do not owe a general "duty of care" to protect individuals from the criminal acts of third parties.

This is the AI view.

Possibly a claim against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority?

[Mortarboard]

donkmeister said:

I have worked with the civil service in the UK as well as with the European Commission. A common attribute of civil servants is that they hate making decisions. Make a decision, and if it's wrong then you get the blame. People go into civil service because the salary is alright and it's traditionally low pressure.

So, my thought process was that if no-one on government is taking responsibility for these horrific actions, then maybe shifting the balance from "let them all in because I don't want to be accused of racism just for doing my job" to "claim denied, I don't want to be held responsible for letting in a murdery rapist" would be a good thing.

Shouldn't be getting that far though.

There's at least a few categories that are instant "nope" territory for asylum-

Been denied in another country? Nope
Wanted criminal? Nope
Certain convictions, spent or otherwise? Nope
Refusal to give dabs & dna voluntarily? Nope

Those would go a long long way to dealing with a lot of the ste going on at the moment.

M.

[sparta6]

donkmeister said:

I have worked with the civil service in the UK as well as with the European Commission. A common attribute of civil servants is that they hate making decisions. Make a decision, and if it's wrong then you get the blame. People go into civil service because the salary is alright and it's traditionally low pressure.

So, my thought process was that if no-one on government is taking responsibility for these horrific actions, then maybe shifting the balance from "let them all in because I don't want to be accused of racism just for doing my job" to "claim denied, I don't want to be held responsible for letting in a murdery rapist" would be a good thing.

Good post.

Civil Service defautls to Gov.
Gov blames Civil Service.

Eternal loop of blame

[SS427 Camaro]

donkmeister said:

Another week, another story of someone who really shouldn't have been allowed to stay causing life changing injuries or death.

Is there anything in law that would allow victims (or surviving family of the victims) of these imported criminals to sue the government who allowed them to stay? This seems like a different situation to a UK born criminal committing the same crimes in the UK... We're stuck with them, but for someone who has been given the green light to stay, someone in government has decided the risk balance of letting the illegal stay is fine. So there is some liability there, surely?

Someone mentioned this to me recently, can the current ( Beyond Appalling ) Gov be sued over this ??

[tele_lover]

jmn said:

Suing the government for the actions of illegal immigrants is generally not legally viable under UK law due to the legal principle that public authorities do not owe a general "duty of care" to protect individuals from the criminal acts of third parties.

This is the AI view.

Possibly a claim against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority?

If Restore get in, they'd just pass a law to enable it.

I hope Reform jump on this.

[MrBogSmith]

Restore would pass a law to allow them to be sued?

[vaud]

donkmeister said:

.. but for someone who has been given the green light to stay, someone in government has decided the risk balance of letting the illegal stay is fine.

Out side of the Home Sec exercising their ministerial powers, it isn't one individual in the Home Office - it will be a scored framework or review committee following govt policy?

[tele_lover]

MrBogSmith said:

Restore would pass a law to allow them to be sued?

I meant Civil Servants held responsible.

Reform mentioned this months ago

[vaud]

tele_lover said:

I meant Civil Servants held responsible.

Reform mentioned this months ago

Well its a good way to reduce the number of Civil Servants who are following govt policy that is approved by the minister responsible. They aren't free agents doing what they want to do (generally)

[swisstoni]

The government is bound by international treaties and laws.

Someone who comes here and claims asylum is protected by law. Their case must be assessed. It they are accepted they stay.

If they are not accepted for asylum, they may still get to remain because we don't have a returns agreement with their country of origin or we consider the return to be unsafe.

Politicians can only change this by leaving or modifying the treaties and laws that bind them.

[tele_lover]

swisstoni said:

The government is bound by international treaties and laws.

Someone who comes here and claims asylum is protected by law. Their case must be assessed. It they are accepted they stay.

If they are not accepted for asylum, they may still get to remain because we don't have a returns agreement with their country of origin or we consider the return to be unsafe.

Politicians can only change this by leaving or modifying the treaties and laws that bind them.

Let's scrap them.

Sorted

[craigjm]

Mortarboard said:

Shouldn't be getting that far though.

There's at least a few categories that are instant "nope" territory for asylum-

Been denied in another country? Nope
Wanted criminal? Nope
Certain convictions, spent or otherwise? Nope
Refusal to give dabs & dna voluntarily? Nope

Those would go a long long way to dealing with a lot of the ste going on at the moment.

M.

Problem with the four nopes you have listed is that there is no way of telling the top three if you don’t know who they are, how old they are, what their real name is and where they really came from. Even if we did there is no international database of those three that could be accessed. This is the crux of the whole issue with the asylum legislation.

[Mortarboard]

craigjm said:

Mortarboard said:

Shouldn't be getting that far though.

There's at least a few categories that are instant "nope" territory for asylum-

Been denied in another country? Nope
Wanted criminal? Nope
Certain convictions, spent or otherwise? Nope
Refusal to give dabs & dna voluntarily? Nope

Those would go a long long way to dealing with a lot of the ste going on at the moment.

M.

Problem with the four nopes you have listed is that there is no way of telling the top three if you don t know who they are, how old they are, what their real name is and where they really came from. Even if we did there is no international database of those three that could be accessed. This is the crux of the whole issue with the asylum legislation.

Not true.

Dabs & DNA, combined with information sharing.
It's in the interests of all borders to do this.

And much of it was in place pre-brexit.

M.

[swisstoni]

craigjm said:

Mortarboard said:

Shouldn't be getting that far though.

There's at least a few categories that are instant "nope" territory for asylum-

Been denied in another country? Nope
Wanted criminal? Nope
Certain convictions, spent or otherwise? Nope
Refusal to give dabs & dna voluntarily? Nope

Those would go a long long way to dealing with a lot of the ste going on at the moment.

M.

Problem with the four nopes you have listed is that there is no way of telling the top three if you don t know who they are, how old they are, what their real name is and where they really came from. Even if we did there is no international database of those three that could be accessed. This is the crux of the whole issue with the asylum legislation.

We can 'nope' all we like.
The fact is that once they are here they are likely to remain here (for the reasons I gave above).

[SlimJim16v]

swisstoni said:

We can 'nope' all we like.
The fact is that once they are here they are likely to remain here (for the reasons I gave above).

Then we need to make arrangements with countries to return them, also send them somewhere like Rwanda. Once that starts happening, the illegal economic migration will reduce considerably.