I was reading deportation cases on Westlaw, and I came across this tale this is entirely characteristic of how hard it is to get illegal immigrants out of the country, and also what an extraordinary sense of entitlement some of them have.
This man should have been removed years ago, and yet he is clinging on to the UK like a barnacle. Frankly, it is outrageous. As a socialist, some would think I would be in favour of this kind of thing but I have far more respect for the putative authority of the state, the will of parliament and the clear desires of the voter to think this should be allowed to go on
(I know it's long and in the language of a legal judgment, but please do read it)And so now he is still here in July 2014, and they are proceeding to trial to adjudicate whether he suffered a tortious injury in the van and has "depression" as a result.5 The claimant is a citizen of Uganda. He was born on the 10th December 1970. He entered the UK in a clandestine manner in 1995. He made a claim for asylum but before that could be determined was arrested for a Class A drug offence and sentenced to a term of 7 years imprisonment.
6 On the 10th February 1997 the claimant was served with a signed deportation order.
7 On the 4th July 1999 the claimant was deported to Uganda. He returned unlawfully a few weeks later on the 23rd July 1999.
8 He next came to the attention of the authorities on the 18th July 2010 when he was arrested for shoplifting. He was subsequently convicted of that offence and of failing to surrender to custody.
He made a further claim for asylum which was dismissed as was a claim to revoke his deportation order. Permission to appeal was refused by the First-Tier Tribunal on the 6th July 2011. Bail was refused on the 29th July 2011 by Clive Lewis QC (as he then was) on the basis that the claimant posed, “a very high risk of absconding.” Permission to appeal was refused by the Upper Tribunal on the 22nd November 2011.
9 On the 16th August 2011 Charles George QC dismissed an application for Judicial Review in which the claimant sought to challenge his removal and detention. The court found that the claim was totally without merit. A renewed oral application was refused by Clive Lewis QC on the 6th December 2011.
10 On the 14th December 2011 the UKBA issued removal directions to the aircraft MS778 and named the claimant, Felix Wamala.
13 On the 15th December the claimant served further representations under Article 8 of the ECHR . Form IS151D was faxed to the claimant's solicitors at 12:34 on the 15th December notifying them of the claimant's removal
14 On the 23rd of December the claimant's MP wrote seeking deferral of the claimant's removal pending consideration of his Article 8 representations. On the same day the claimant issued a further claim for Judicial Review challenging his removal.
15 Later that day the Court of Appeal refused the claimant's application for permission to appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court dated 6th December on the basis that his application was totally without merit. In its observations the Court of Appeal said,
16 After receipt of that document the UKBA wrote to the claimant and notified him of the Court of Appeal's decision. The letter continued,
“You will know that you are being removed to Uganda on the 24th December 2011 at 14:00 hours.”
17 UKBA was not prepared to defer the directions that were in place for his removal.
18 On the 24th December 2011 the claimant was taken to a reception area at Brook House Immigration centre where he was handed over to employees of the second defendant. He was placed into an escort van and driven to Heathrow.
Events thereafter are the subject of dispute. The claimant alleges that the officers of the second defendant used force and threatened force to get him onto the Qatar flight. When on the flight the claimant informed the cabin crew that he was being unlawfully removed against his will.
He asked to speak to the Captain to object to his removal. He claims that provoked an assault from the officers of the second defendant during the course of which he sustained injuries.
His removal was aborted. He was carried back to the escort van when he says that he was dropped. He has suffered from a back injury, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression subsequently. The factual events will need to be resolved at a subsequent hearing.
19 A further claim for judicial review was issued in May 2012. The current proceedings claiming damages for assault were started in October 2012 under reference HQ12 X04 287. In March 2013 the judicial review claim was resolved on the basis that the claimant would not be removed until his claim for damages was substantively concluded.
A Tale of Illegal Immigration Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by MostUncivilised; 04-07-2014 at 20:51.
- 04-07-2014 02:54
- Thread Starter
- 04-07-2014 20:50
Bumpity bump. I know it's not a riveting story, but it is totemic of how illegal immigrants behave in Great Britain
- 04-07-2014 20:55
we're mugs basically.
eaten through and through like a rotting piece of cheese with guilty feelings about being white, and living in a civilised country
- 04-07-2014 20:58
It is inconvenient how difficult it is to get rid of them.
On a related note I remember how outraged the Guardian was by this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...long-detention
but I think their stance is absolutely right.
It should not be taken for granted that you will be allowed to reside in a country if said country did not allow you in.