Starmer’s chronicles

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

.. but when the judge is from an immigration lawyers' chambers and has also appeared for clients .....?

How often has that happened?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

How often has that happened?

Dunno - exactly; but if you go to https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-j...bunals-judges/

and scroll down the list of immigration judges, then look up their careers and past chambers, you may get my point. It's a lot of work - so you may wish to take my word for it.

[Russ]

I don’t deal in hypotheticals when it comes to my area of employment.

If you have a specific case in mind, cite it.

Otherwise acknowledge your conjecture.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

There is only ONE “version” of human rights. I think you’re mistaking ‘opinion’ with ‘rights enshrined in Law’.
...

Originally Posted by Russ

That’s for the judge to decide, not the solicitor.

Yep just like people in banking, engineering, security, retail, farming etc etc specialise in certain areas.

I’m not even sure stats are kept. Human rights issues are often included in employment tribunals for example.

Link

In August 2007, an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that Chindamo could not be deported to his home country of Italy on completion of his prison sentence.[11] He had resided in the UK for 19 years, long enough to make him a permanent resident under EU law after discounting 10 years spent in jail.
...
The tribunal found that even if the EU law argument had failed, he would have a right to stay under human rights law. In the exceptional circumstances of his having lived in England since age 6, an Article 8 right to "family life" was found in relation to his mother and siblings.[13]

[Russ]

And your point is…?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... but when the judge is from an immigration lawyers' chambers and has also appeared for clients .....?

I would suggest that you appear to be conflating barristers (not lawyers) chambers, and "immigration barristers chambers" - whilst quite a few chambers have renowned immigration law practices, they are almost always multi-disciplinary, providing advocacy in many other areas.

For example
Goldsmith Chambers
Animal Rights
Civil
Clinical Negligence & Healthcare
Crime
Extradition
Family
Immigration and Public Law
Inquests and Inquiries

Doughty Law
Actions Against the Police and Public Authorities
Administrative & Public Law
Anti-Trafficking, Modern Slavery and Business & Human Rights
Business Crime & Investigations
Children's Rights Group
Climate and Environmental Justice
Clinical Negligence, Personal Injury & Product Liability
Community Care and Health
Court of Protection & Mental Health
Criminal Law
Criminal Appeals
Education
Employment, Discrimination and Equality Law
Extradition
Housing, Social Welfare and Property
Immigration
International Law
Inquests and Public Inquiries
Media, Communications & Information
Mediation
Professional Discipline and Regulation[/quote]

Any KCs from any chambers who have been made Judges (when they have to leave the Chambers) could actually have been specialising in one of many areas of expertise.

I put it to you that unless you can provide a solid evidentiary link between Judges who previously specialised in Immigration Law in a multi-disciplinary Chambers, and before becoming Judges had advocated on behalf of clients and the clients’ solicitors on Immigration matters, and then subsequently, after becoming a Judge, have ruled in favour of Barristers from the Judge’s previous Chambers on an Immigration matter, your rhetorical question

but when the judge is from an immigration lawyers' chambers and has also appeared for clients .....?

is more imaginary than hypothetical…

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

And your point is…?

Only one version, yet the judges get to decide.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Only one version, yet the judges get to decide.

Well yes….they judge whether it has been breached or not.

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

<snip>

Dammit i was hoping to give him enough rope to hang himself with.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

...is more imaginary than hypothetical…

Indeed. Sounds like someone may have taken an overdose of GB News to reach that conclusion.

---------- Post added at 23:25 ---------- Previous post was at 23:23 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Only one version, yet the judges get to decide.

How dare judges judge! Whatever next? Nurses get to nurse? Teachers get to teach?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Teachers get to teach?

Well that would be a first

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Indeed. Sounds like someone may have taken an overdose of GB News to reach that conclusion.

---------- Post added at 23:25 ---------- Previous post was at 23:23 ----------


How dare judges judge! Whatever next? Nurses get to nurse? Teachers get to teach?

That would make it reality, not imaginary. Real examples exist.



Either there is one version of the law or judges can decide whatever they choose. Which is it? When you have decisions going clearly against the law and it's intent, it's not one version of the law.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

That would make it reality, not imaginary. Real examples exist.



Either there is one version of the law or judges can decide whatever they choose. Which is it? When you have decisions going clearly against the law and it's intent, it's not one version of the law.

Tell us you have no idea of how the Law works without telling us you have no idea how the Law works

It goes a little bit like this:

Solicitor 1: “My interpretation of the Law is my client has had his human rights breached because of XYZ reasons”

Solicitor 2: “My interpretation of the Law is no human rights have been breached because ABC reasons”

Judge: “Looking at all the evidence my ruling is *insert agreement with Solicitor 1 or 2 here*.”

Get it now?

[Itshim]

Referring to getting out of echr

Originally Posted by Russ

Yep and lose the right to a fair trial, the right to free from torture, free from prosecution, the right to life, the right to free expression, right to privacy, right to be free from inhumane treatment etc etc

But a small price to pay to get rid of some brown people eh?

Sorry did I misunderstand this

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Ah so we’re back to “making up things Russ didn’t say”. Good to know.

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Itshim

So you don't trust our courts to get it right, mind you as Starmer was one of the top officers of it you might well be right. I am sure that a Romanian or Hungarian judge would be fairer

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Referring to getting out of echr



Sorry did I misunderstand this

Yep pretty much looks that way.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

Tell us you have no idea of how the Law works without telling us you have no idea how the Law works

It goes a little bit like this:

Solicitor 1: “My interpretation of the Law is my client has had his human rights breached because of XYZ reasons”

Solicitor 2: “My interpretation of the Law is no human rights have been breached because ABC reasons”

Judge: “Looking at all the evidence my ruling is *insert agreement with Solicitor 1 or 2 here*.”

Get it now?

Not with First Tier Tribunals. As long as the First tier Judge fully explains their decision, they can make any decision they want. Common sense, facts, or law don't come into it. It's only if they haven't fully explained their reasons, that the judgement can be challenged for an "error in law". Even then, if it gets to the Upper Tier Tribunal, it's likely to be tossed back to the 1st Tier for another hearing. And so the process repeats itself.
Link to decisions published from the Upper Tribunal Immigration and asylum chamber.