• Privacy policy
  • T&C’s
  • About Us
    • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Guest Content
  • TLE
  • News
  • Politics
  • Opinion
    • Elevenses
  • Business
  • Food
  • Travel
  • Property
  • JOBS
  • All
    • All Entertainment
    • Film
    • Sport
    • Tech/Auto
    • Lifestyle
    • Lottery Results
      • Lotto
      • Set For Life
      • Thunderball
      • EuroMillions
No Result
View All Result
The London Economic
SUPPORT THE LONDON ECONOMIC
NEWSLETTER
The London Economic
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Patel’s ‘rotten to the core’ Home Office argues with Secret Barrister and it doesn’t go well

"More #FakeLaw from @pritipatel’s fundamentally dishonest Home Office."

Joe Mellor by Joe Mellor
2020-10-10 10:55
in News
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmailWhatsapp

Last week the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said that the UK’s asylum system is “fundamentally broken” as she promises to introduce a new one that is “firm and fair”.

In a speech at the Conservative Party conference, Priti Patel committed to delivering “the biggest overhaul of our asylum system in decades”.

Ms Patel said that under Tory leadership, the UK “has and always will provide sanctuary when the lights are being switched off on people’s liberties”.

She added: “A fair asylum system should provide safe haven to those fleeing persecution, oppression or tyranny.”

Secret Barrister

But is the UK really a ‘ sanctuary when the lights are being switched off on people’s liberties?’ Well this argument on social media last night lead you to question that assertion.

The Secret Barrister is a well respected social media law expert, with over 400,000 followers on Twitter. Behind a cloak of anonymity they are able to hold the Government and others to account, and regularly do.

Yesterday was another such example, but the Home Office bit back, again, then climbed down. It was an embarrassing way to put the Home Office in their place but it was necessary.

It began with a Tweet from the Home Office which read: “Yesterday we returned 14 dangerous Foreign National Offenders, who broke our rules & abused our values, to Lithuania. Our efforts to return those who arrived via illegally-facilitated routes were frustrated by legal claims. Our asylum system is broken but we’re making it fairer.”

In response he Secret Barrister’s tweeted: “More #FakeLaw from @pritipatel’s fundamentally dishonest Home Office. “Convicted foreign criminals” have absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the asylum system. The @ukhomeoffice is spreading false information and should immediately issue a correction and an apology.”

RelatedPosts

Gary Lineker says BBC should ‘hold its head in shame’ for not airing Gaza documentary

BBC to stop showing ‘high risk’ performances after Bob Vylan Glastonbury controversy

Keir Starmer confirms Rachel Reeves will be Chancellor ‘for a very long time to come’

Trump complains about lack of porn access in White House, says former aide

More #FakeLaw from @pritipatel’s fundamentally dishonest Home Office.

“Convicted foreign criminals” have absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the asylum system.

The @ukhomeoffice is spreading false information and should immediately issue a correction and an apology. https://t.co/4oh5ovDHrc

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) October 9, 2020

The Home Office replied: “Not being able to remove people who arrived via illegally-facilitated routes from safe EU countries because of late-stage legal claims (as is the case with this flight) is an asylum issue – as this tweet makes clear.”

Not being able to remove people who arrived via illegally-facilitated routes from safe EU countries because of late-stage legal claims (as is the case with this flight) is an asylum issue – as this tweet makes clear.

— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) October 9, 2020

The Secret Barrister replied: “Oh hello, Home-Office-Civil-Servant-In-Breach-Of-The-Civil-Service-Code. We’ve had this dance before, haven’t we? You lie, I correct you, you lie again. Let’s keep this simple: Explain to me the legal link between deporting foreign national offenders and asylum law. Go.”

Oh hello, Home-Office-Civil-Servant-In-Breach-Of-The-Civil-Service-Code.

We’ve had this dance before, haven’t we?

You lie, I correct you, you lie again.

Let’s keep this simple:

Explain to me the legal link between deporting foreign national offenders and asylum law.

Go. https://t.co/DhEhr82FFL

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) October 9, 2020

Then Professor of EU Law, Human Rights Law & World Trade Law, Uni of Essex Steve Peers entered the spat Tweeting: “Seriously? You’re trying to correct @BarristerSecret? Do explain how the persons concerned were ‘Foreign National Offenders’, as you claim in your tweet.”

Seriously? You're trying to correct @BarristerSecret? Do explain how the persons concerned were 'Foreign National Offenders', as you claim in your tweet.

— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) October 9, 2020

4. The Home Office came back with “We were able to remove Foreign National Offenders on that flight. The asylum seekers who were due for removal on the same flight had to be taken off at a late stage.”

We were able to remove Foreign National Offenders on that flight. The asylum seekers who were due for removal on the same flight had to be taken off at a late stage.

— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) October 9, 2020

Astonished at the Home office’s reply the Secret Barrister replied: “So that’s your link? Contemporaneity? Seriously? You justify that tweet on the basis that, at the same time as deporting some foreign national offenders, you were challenged against unlawfully removing some (completely separate) asylum seekers? Is that genuinely your defence?”

So that’s your link? Contemporaneity? Seriously? You justify that tweet on the basis that, at the same time as deporting some foreign national offenders, you were challenged against unlawfully removing some (completely separate) asylum seekers?

Is that genuinely your defence?

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) October 9, 2020

After the dust began to settle the Secret Barrister summed up the online argument saying: “A Home Office civil servant admits that they posted a misleading tweet falsely conflating foreign national offenders with asylum seekers. And they’re not remotely sorry. @pritipatel’s department is rotten to the core.”

A Home Office civil servant admits that they posted a misleading tweet falsely conflating foreign national offenders with asylum seekers.

And they’re not remotely sorry.@pritipatel’s department is rotten to the core. https://t.co/WukAFqcDAb

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) October 9, 2020

The Secret Barrister also reminded readers of another time, back in May of this year when ‘@pritipatel abused the impartiality of the @ukhomeoffice Civil Servants by instructing them to spread lies on Twitter.’

1.

Here, for the memories, was the last time @pritipatel abused the impartiality of the @ukhomeoffice Civil Servants by instructing them to spread lies on Twitter: https://t.co/fLXtbbyD7c

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) October 9, 2020

2.

On 29 April 2020, the Home Office sent this letter to the President of the First-Tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This is the senior judge responsible for overseeing immigration and asylum cases in the First-Tier Tribunal. pic.twitter.com/gRPQL0LVKK

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

3.

What does the Home Office wish the judge to know?

Well, it ostensibly wants to discuss “the high level of bail hearings taking place recently” in immigration proceedings, and the approach that “presenting officers” (legal officers who represent the Home Office) are taking. pic.twitter.com/oYtIKe8iMn

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

4.

It starts by stating that the Home Office has reduced the number of people detained, and has reviewed all cases to ensure that, in the Home Office’s view, detention remains appropriate.

These are things you’d think a senior immigration judge might already know, but fine. pic.twitter.com/RIFYb02VIZ

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

5.

But then it gets odd. The Home Office feels the need to remind the judge – the most senior immigration judge – of its recent success in the High Court, where an attempt to secure mass release on bail of all detainees was unsuccessful.

And to send the judge a link to the judgment pic.twitter.com/eyR57Z4z9F

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

6.

Why this boast?

It’s because of what comes next. For this is not simply an information update to assist the judiciary. The letter contains comment.

Quite important comment:

“The Hope Office is somewhat surprised at the level of grants of bail in recent weeks.”

Ah. pic.twitter.com/YBZuLvWgl8

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

7.

For one, the Home Office doesn’t appear to have understood its own victory. That High Court judgment simply confirmed the lawfulness of the Home Office’s policy – that’s not the same as saying that all detentions under the policy are appropriate and that no one should be bailed.

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

8.

Bail in immigration cases is set out in this note: https://t.co/Mo5aLOBYdh

Here are a couple of extracts. But the key point is that each case turns on its own facts.

The fact that the detention scheme is lawful in principle, doesn’t mean that every individual detained should be pic.twitter.com/GqnemvLb7D

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

9.

The Home Office will argue that a person should be detained. The detainee will argue that they can be safely bailed. The judge in any case will apply the legal framework and make an independent value judgment.

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

10.

So assuming, as we safely can, that the judge knows the law, what possible purpose is envisaged in writing to him to express “surprise” at the number of cases the Home Office is losing?

The only conceivable answer is that the Home Office is hoping to influence future decisions.

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

11.

What follows proves this. It is two paragraphs of the type of submissions that might be made by the Home Office in a bail hearing. Again, the judge will be familiar with these arguments. So why publicly put them in writing?

Again, the only answer is: to apply public pressure. pic.twitter.com/Pvc4AUfdfC

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

12.

Likewise, one wonders what reason there is asking for written reasons to be given, when judges give oral reasons in court and the Home Office has a presenting officer who can take a full note.

One might see it as a shot across the bows. The Home Office throwing its weight around pic.twitter.com/dYrdpmkDRO

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

13.

This is a performative exercise in which the Home Office is effectively saying to the judiciary, “How dare you decide against us in so many bail cases? Don’t you know who we are and what pressure we’re under?”

And no doubt the HO is under pressure. But this is wholly improper.

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

14.

The forum for arguing over the merits of judicial decisions is a courtroom. Not in letters in which civil servants passively-aggressively express “surprise”, ridiculously brandishing a High Court judgment of a recent victory as a baseball bat.

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

15.

What of the Home Office’s claim, in their tweet to me, that the judge was grateful for the letter?

Well, it’s certainly true that the judge opens by thanking the letter writer. The Home Office can bank that.

But look at the second paragraph.

Ooof! pic.twitter.com/zeq6Ny0U9c

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

16.

Having to start a letter by reminding the Home Secretary that “as independent judiciary we decide bail applications in accordance with the law” is a judicial Glasgow kiss.

Utterly cutting. Humiliating for a minister to have to be publicly told this.

But on we go…

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

17.

The judge politely reminds the Home Office of what the law and the bail guidance (linked above) says.

He then addresses (although he should not have to) the substance of the complaint: pic.twitter.com/PKQQpucBwW

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

18.

As for the Home Secretary’s request for written reasons in bail cases that she loses – well this has rather backfired.

The judge introduced a practice to help the Home Office understand those reasons, and the HO is failing to engage! “Generic submissions”, “not helpful” – ouch. pic.twitter.com/CrFPWhqjgm

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

19.

Finally, the judge reminds the Home Office, once more, of the law, and that “an inability of Government departments” to provide suitable bail accommodation does not, in law, justify refusing someone bail. pic.twitter.com/3zbbk1Ow0B

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

20.

So in summary, the judicial response is:

“1. Thank you for your letter. It’s, umm, helpful.

2. Judges are independent.

3. You don’t seem to know the law. Here it is.

4. I tried to help you before and you failed to engage.

5. Here’s the law again.

Yours etc”

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

21.

That the Home Office suggests that the judge found its letter “helpful and informative” is indicative either of dishonesty or delusion.

So there’s my take, anyway.

I invite the Home Office to prove the truth of its tweet describing my words as “completely untrue.”

[ENDS]

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 6, 2020

Related: The week in Tory is back…after just a couple of days

Subscribe to our Newsletter

View our  Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions

About Us

TheLondonEconomic.com – Open, accessible and accountable news, sport, culture and lifestyle.

Read more

SUPPORT

We do not charge or put articles behind a paywall. If you can, please show your appreciation for our free content by donating whatever you think is fair to help keep TLE growing and support real, independent, investigative journalism.

DONATE & SUPPORT

Contact

Editorial enquiries, please contact: [email protected]

Commercial enquiries, please contact: [email protected]

Address

The London Economic Newspaper Limited t/a TLE
Company number 09221879
International House,
24 Holborn Viaduct,
London EC1A 2BN,
United Kingdom

© The London Economic Newspaper Limited t/a TLE thelondoneconomic.com - All Rights Reserved. Privacy

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Politics
  • Lottery Results
    • Lotto
    • Set For Life
    • Thunderball
    • EuroMillions
  • Business
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Lifestyle
  • Food
  • Travel
  • JOBS
  • More…
    • Elevenses
    • Opinion
    • Property
    • Tech & Auto
  • About Us
    • Privacy policy
  • Contact us

© The London Economic Newspaper Limited t/a TLE thelondoneconomic.com - All Rights Reserved. Privacy

← Police investigation launched over David Starkey interview were he said their are ‘so many damn blacks’ ← Tory donor who gave PM silver envelope given knighthood as Honours system branded ‘elitist’
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Politics
  • Lottery Results
    • Lotto
    • Set For Life
    • Thunderball
    • EuroMillions
  • Business
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Lifestyle
  • Food
  • Travel
  • JOBS
  • More…
    • Elevenses
    • Opinion
    • Property
    • Tech & Auto
  • About Us
    • Privacy policy
  • Contact us

© The London Economic Newspaper Limited t/a TLE thelondoneconomic.com - All Rights Reserved. Privacy

-->