This is not only obviously untrue because they were quite explicitly bent by the judge, but also untrue in the face of the entire history of law. This is why these appeals exist, for exceptional circumstances. And there's a general attitude towards forgiveness for administrative mistakes.
If there was to be no interpretation or exception to law, we wouldn't need judges or allow appeals to settle these matters.
Law is written by man. Law is interpreted by man. Your ridiculous, strict perspective on the absolute power and immutability of law is that shared by the worst of dictators in history. Reflect on that.
Jean-Luc Picard
But the problem with allowing "discretion" in laws, is whose discretion.
And there seems to be a recent govt enthusiasm for the meta issue of which laws to enforce, and how vigorously, which is certainly a concern.
I'm betting that for every 5 calls you make over there, you'll get a different answer. That is also true for the applications made, which sometimes require re-submission in such edge cases (with obviously an incredibly short notice period).
I am not appealing to any sentiment over here, but frankly it's a system that is inherently hostile even towards those who try hard to make sure the application is done right.
I have also played this game with home office - you ring them up and ask "can you remain in the UK as an EU citizen if you are not exercising your EU free movement rights" - the answer will be no, you cannot. Then you can ask if you can be an EU student in the UK without private health insurance - the answer will be "yes, but you are simply not exercising your free movement rights". Then you can follow with "so is an EU student without private health insurance here illegally?" And the answer will be "no".
I've spoken to several immigration lawyers and they all said that what the Home office is doing is strictly illegal - they cannot require presenting proof of private health insurance for the years of studying in order for those years to count towards permanent residence rights. But good luck taking them to court and winning. I'm simply waiting 5 years from the moment when I started working, but it's an incredibly frustrating process. To add to this, I know from my friends that for my particular nationality(Polish) the process for applying for citizenship looks like this - send the application, wait nearly a year to find out it's been rejected, appeal, have the appeal date set 6-8 months in the future, no one from the home office turns up at court, the application is re-reviewed and approved.
It's absolute nonsense, and like you said, it only exists to make the entire process as hostile as physically possible.
That card had never been required at the NHS either.
Took me another £300 (lawyers, official printing excess) to just get the right documents supporting that and I still had no idea if they would even be accepted - because their support line is absolutely oblivious (and to be clear - that is the only support channel they have, outside lawyers themselves who can only advise based on their experience, rather than a set of written guidelines).
The sad thing is that you can still get away with it. But I can see how that turns a huge amount of genuinely honest people away too.
British law is full of opportunities for rules to be bent in the pursuit of justice and common sense.
> if Lucas made a mistake in filing the wrong paperwork, it absolutely makes sense for the consequences to follow
Do you pay British tax? I think you’d be hard-pushed to find even the most ardent anti-immigration Britisher saying they thought this was a good use of their tax pounds and the Home Office’s time.
> the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid
Said no jurisprudence scholar, ever. There’s a reason that strict liability crimes are so limited in number, why judges in the UK have considerable leeway in sentencing, and so on.
Of course Lucas fucked up by filling out the wrong form and should have had a lawyer review it. And his immigration status was at stake and he blew it. It doesn’t mean these things can’t be fixed by humans making the right decision.
> This article attempts to paint a picture of the poor child, but the law was clear, and any emotional appeal should be invalid.
If the law is so clear, one would think the Home Office wouldn't have treated him this way only for a judge to find he should have another chance, nor presumably, would the Home Office have wrongly claimed a rule that does exist doesn't exist.
When the Home Office itself fails to get this right, it is completely unreasonable to assume that applicants will.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/uk-r...
It's been 2 years since India sent a formal extradition request. It has been rejected twice. I can understand UK Home Office's affinity for following rules to a tee when it comes to Lucas' case but why not extend the same for economic fugitives?
In many countries, being gay is illegal. In some countries, being a woman and walking alone in the street is illegal. “Oh, but they have to respect the law” is a poor defense.
If there is no such rule in place in the UK, then that is where the government did something wrong.
I think that rather depends on whether you regard the role of government here to assist its (future) citizens, or censure them (narrowly avoiding arrest and detention in this case) for what appear to be minor violations of immigration law.
edit: to all that are down voting this comment, please don’t. this is our opportunity to explain why we feel this is a bad view to have, and “silencing” this person’s opinion, if anything, can only have the effect of reenforcing this belief.
this is not a spam comment, this is discussion.