The Rights of Refugees Under International Law - Case Study Example

What were the material facts of the case The case d Thein v. Director of Public Prosecutions conducted by High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court DC. The material facts of the case has been its direct relevance and justification through interpretation of the section 2(1) of the Immigration Act 2002, therefore the defense has termed the three month imprisonment sentence by District Judge Hammond, as illegal and repugnant to the law and its interpretation. The lawyer has submitted its arguments with direct reference to the section 2(1) and 2(6) (b) which provide defense to the convicted relation to a genuine document. The section 2(6)(b) has provided 'provide a defense in relation to a genuine document where the accused has travelled to and entered the United Kingdom using a false document', for which the defense counsel has referred to the provisions listed in section 2(3). The defense has challenged the application of subsection (4) (c) and (5) (c), and has justified the action of the defendant for non-submission of the documents as per the injunctions of subsection (3). The counsel of the defendant referred to the decision of the district judge, and focused upon the true and legitimate interpretation of the subsection (6) (b), the submission of the defendant stated that 'It is a defense for the defendant to prove that he has a reasonable excuse for not providing a document within three days of the interview'. What was (or were) the legal issue(s) in the case The legal issues in the case have been the raised and addressed. It was observed that two subsections have been taken as assumption with reference to the false immigration document submitted during the journey. If the defendant is able to justify his non-submission of the document, his actions can be regarded as legal by virtue of the provisions of subsection (7) (b) (iii), as per which 'the defendant had handed the false passport that he had used to his facilitator in circumstances where it would have been unreasonable to expect non-compliance with his instructions to do so'. As per the district judge, the subsection (3) and (6) (b) are applicable on the immigration document which has been in the possession of the defendant during his journey, however the subsection is not applicable provided that it has been proven that the immigration documents never existed. The claim ca neb verified through revision of the official records of the Immigration Department. Such issue further proclaimed that 'it was not open to the appellant to rely upon the fact that he had been unable to provide a genuine immigration document within three days of his interview'. However, the district judge has contended that the application of the two subsections is legal, and the subsections can be referred to during the discussion of the contentious issues related to the false immigration document. However, the appellant's alternative case has been disqualified, because 'he had not demonstrated that it was unreasonable to expect him not to comply with his facilitator's instructions to return the false passport'. The defendant has claimed that the mention of adverbial in the subsection signified that 'only relevant provision of subsection (3) shall be submitted within three days', thus providing exemption to the defendant. Which technique(s) of statutory interpretation do you consider that the Lord Chief Justice employed in the case Give reasons for your answers. According to the Chief Justice the subsection (4) (d) is related to the situation when the defense is implicated for the submission of the false documents, therefore the application of the subsection (3) has been declared as restricted, whereas the defense is obliged to submit his documents within three days of his interview. According to the judge, the application of the subsection (4) (d) is justified provided that the false documents are submitted by the immigrant after the charges are levied against him, therefore the conviction under section 2 is not possible until the period of three days has expired. The procedure and formality regarding the submission of the immigration documents is relaxed provided that the immigrant is able to justify that he has been unable to acquire his immigration documents from the country of origin. The judge has decreed that such circumstances have provided relief to the immigrant, 'that is a genuine document, within three days of his asylum interview; therefore in these circumstances he had a valid defense to the charge'. The judge has agreed that the interpretation of the section 2 will undermine the objective of the clause, 'to some extent it may do so' (Case Record). For what reason(s) did the Lord Chief Justice state that this (or these) method(s) of statutory interpretation would not end in an absurd result The judge has been of the opinion that 'the draftsmanship of the section leaves much to be desired' (Case Record). The judgment is support and assist the immigration authority, and has resulted in the rectification of their routine practice as per which the authorities use to simply destroy and damage all the documents submitted by the immigrants, and has been reluctant to classify any information including the origin of the country. The judgment could have been further garnished and modified provided that the defense was in the possession of the valid immigration documents, such evidences were not provided and the access was simply refuted by the immigration authorities. The judge has condemned the restrictions levied by the immigration authorities, and has observed that as per section (4) (d) the defense is under obligation to produce the false immigration documents, along with the proof that the documents were used by the defense regardless of the purpose and situation through out the voyage, and therefore 'the coupled requirements with the production of the document, will assist to determine the country of origin', for which the immigration authority has to relax their policy, and has to necessarily offer a go ahead for the acquisition and reference of the documents. Why did the Lord Chief Justice decline to use Hansard as an aid to statutory construction And what were his concerns on using such material in a criminal case During the proceedings the case titled R v Da Hua Weng and Guo Xing Wang [2005] EWCA Crim 2248 was referred which was an appeal against the sentence. As per the observation of the court it refuted that the 'offence was not in order to deal generally with those who arrived here seeking asylum without documentation, or who presented false documentation', rather the offence was aimed at discouraging the immigrant officers from 'destroying or disposing of their immigration documents en route to the United Kingdom' (Case Record). Thus such offence shall not be considered purely under criminal law, however the ignorance and refute of the writ of the law shall be considered a crime (James, 2005). The judge developed his concerns with reference to the non-applicability of such material in criminal cases, the crime has to be regarded as condemnable, and the writ shall be applicable irrespective of whether the origin of the defense has been proven or not. However the judge has ignored the influence and the participation of the embassy of the respective country, the foreign countries are generally seek the deportation of their national, and avoid their proceedings to be conducted in foreign country. Explain, in your own words, the ratio decidendi of Thein v. Director of Public Prosecutions. In any of the case it is difficult to expect the absence of the origin i.e. nationality. The involvement and the participation of the asylum seekers are therefore consistent, and plays legitimate role as observer, participant and contributor towards the progress and development of the country, unless such elements are not found guilty of any criminal offense. The accountability of the plans and policies approved by the immigration authority shall be exercised, and therefore continuous involvement into the matters can be ensured, and their absence has least possibility (Austin, 2004). The law has taken into consideration the rules of conflicts of interests. The authorities including immigration personnel in case found guilty of taking advantage of relationship that damages the credibility of the country, are liable to punishment and inquiry. Furthermore, the classification shall be sought on the matter of immigration document and false immigration document. The issue has been with reference to the interpretation of the law, therefore the law shall be well-defined and self-explanatory in order to avoid any differences and controversies, the application of the law and its sections has to be given due consideration. The application of the law shall never be situation based, rather it should be generalized and the foundation for each shall be scribed with clearly. It was observed that on one instance the law prohibited the immigrant from the submission of the documents, whereas the same law offered relaxation to the immigrant towards the submission of documents for minor variations. References 1. Thein v. Director of Public Prosecutions. High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court. DC 2. James C. Hathaway. The Rights of Refugees Under International Law. 2005. Cambridge University Press. pp. 215. 3. Austin. Sarat. The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society. 2004. Blackwell Publishing. Read More