Parley Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I didn't say that I said a mistake. But there must have been a reason she was suspected of being unlawful and then she couldn't prove her citizenship. Did she have mental issues ? or was that Cornelia Rau ? I can't recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 This is all totally irrelevant anyway to the issue at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotrod Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Should Austrlian criminals who offend in the UK be deported from the UK back to Australia after serving their sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Should Rolf Harris be deported from the UK back to Australia after serving his sentence? Of course not. I have no idea whether Mr Harris has UK citizenship (if he does, the question is immaterial), but in any case, he has lived in the UK for 62 years - apart from a four year interlude from 1958-1962. He has been married to a British citizen for 56 years. He doesn't represent a threat any more to society and is being punished for crimes he committed as would a British citizen. He is a frail, elderly man. How would natural justice be served by deporting him to a country where he hasn't lived for over half a decade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrussell Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 I didn't say that I said a mistake.But there must have been a reason she was suspected of being unlawful and then she couldn't prove her citizenship. Did she have mental issues ? or was that Cornelia Rau ? I can't recall. She had a wheelchair issue and was disparaged by immigration officers by being labelled a prostitute. Look up Dr Muhamed Haneef. There are numerous others. Some people who have never been charged with anything are facing mandatory lifetime imprisonment, with no prospect of finding out why they have been imprisoned. In immigrationspeak they have variously been called - detainees, clients, transferees. The correct English word is prisoner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Haneef was Indian not Australian and charged with terrorism offences. So hardly a relevant example. Asylum Seekers are also not Australian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrussell Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 Haneef was Indian not Australian and charged with terrorism offences.So hardly a relevant example. Asylum Seekers are also not Australian. Mohamed Haneef has reportedly been awarded about $1 million in compensation after he was wrongly detained on terrorism related charges in 2007. Charges against the Indian born doctor were later dropped as prosecutors admitted bungling the case, and an independent inquiry cleared Dr Haneef of any wrongdoing. Yesterday, Dr Haneef was awarded a substantial but confidential amount of compensation following negotiations with the federal government. Now it has been reported by the Times of India that amount could be as much as $1 million. Kevin Andrews, the immigration minister at the time, said last night he had been advised defamation action against him had been dropped. He added that he had made no apology, nor had any compensation been paid in relation to the action. Today, Dr Haneef's lawyer, Rod Hodgson, declined to comment on Indian media reports that the settlement was about $1 million, the ABC reported. Mr Hodgson would only say the settlement was ''substantial'' and Dr Haneef was ''delighted'' with the deal’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Yes I know about the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Got to break some eggs to make an omelette, Parleycross? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 What do you mean ? I'm not sure what these old cases have to do with the new character laws but let me know if you do. Obviously mistakes can happen regardless of the law, and there are also times when personal liberty is lost to safeguard the community. Criminals are often held on remand after being charged, and sometimes charges may subsequently be dropped, or a person found not guilty. That is not that unusual. Mick Gatto was held on remand for 18 months and then cleared by a jury of murder and manslaughter. But these are old cases anyway nothing to do with the current government or the new laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 What do you mean ? What I mean is that we all accept that mistakes happen. However, you seem pretty unconcerned about it and think it is a price worth paying for the greater good. You are not alone in having such a view, but most of your fellow travellers would be at one extreme end of the political spectrum or the other. Those of us nearer the centre are troubled by these mistakes and think it is worth designing laws in a way that (a) minimises the chance of a mistake happening; (b) minimises the damage caused by such mistakes; and © includes a mechanism for addressing mistakes quickly and easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozmaniac Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 What do you mean ?I'm not sure what these old cases have to do with the new character laws but let me know if you do. Obviously mistakes can happen regardless of the law, and there are also times when personal liberty is lost to safeguard the community. Criminals are often held on remand after being charged, and sometimes charges may subsequently be dropped, or a person found not guilty. That is not that unusual. Mick Gatto was held on remand for 18 months and then cleared by a jury of murder and manslaughter. But these are old cases anyway nothing to do with the current government or the new laws. Nor can I see what the old cases have to do with the new character laws. The last 3 pages of this thread have gone completely off topic. If you have something to say about the new character laws, please post in this thread. If you want to start or continue a discussion of old cases, please start a thread in News, Chat and Dilemmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.