The Nigerian case is interesting. From the scant information suggests that he was arguing there was no sufficiency of protection in the UK, in the Horvath sense, from non state actors. Punchy argument
I don't think this is anything to do with Rwanda, is it? They failed with asylum applications in the UK so would have been sent back to Iraq/Nigeria. So they fled to Ireland and claimed asylum there.
And the argument is whether Ireland can reject that claim on the basis that the last country they were in was the UK. Ireland having legislated a provision that it will not consider humanitarian grounds for anyone who has gone through Britain.
But the applicants are saying that that cannot apply as the UK has already rejected their humanitarian grounds. So de facto Ireland would not be sending them back to the UK - but back to Iraq/Nigeria.
Ergo Ireland cannot use the "summary" procedure of just putting them on the first boat back to the UK - Ireland has to consider the humanitarian grounds de novo.
That seems to be what the judge has decided. Bold but either way it was bound to be appealed so she's given the next court up some food for thought.
0
4
We sho uld embrace this and enforce it against othe EU countries like France.
#Stoptheboats
1
5
I would’ve thought this would be welcomed by the Tories.
I do love the Irish.
0
5
Is this the same Ireland where they set an asylum seeker hotel on fire?
4
4
Racist scum in every country, Tom. The only difference is we elected ours.
0
4
The Nigerian case is interesting. From the scant information suggests that he was arguing there was no sufficiency of protection in the UK, in the Horvath sense, from non state actors. Punchy argument
0
4
What is the ‘Horvath’sense?
0
4
probably a fair judgement by our cousins in the republic tbf
0
4
Yet still they arrive…
0
4
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000706/horv-1…
0
3
I don't think this is anything to do with Rwanda, is it? They failed with asylum applications in the UK so would have been sent back to Iraq/Nigeria. So they fled to Ireland and claimed asylum there.
And the argument is whether Ireland can reject that claim on the basis that the last country they were in was the UK. Ireland having legislated a provision that it will not consider humanitarian grounds for anyone who has gone through Britain.
But the applicants are saying that that cannot apply as the UK has already rejected their humanitarian grounds. So de facto Ireland would not be sending them back to the UK - but back to Iraq/Nigeria.
Ergo Ireland cannot use the "summary" procedure of just putting them on the first boat back to the UK - Ireland has to consider the humanitarian grounds de novo.
That seems to be what the judge has decided. Bold but either way it was bound to be appealed so she's given the next court up some food for thought.
0
3
I agree with Judge Siobhán Phelan
0
2
The Germans refused to extradite some dude on grounds that prisons were not fit or were dangerous
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/05/germany-refuses-extradi…
Join the discussion