how do you feel about this? (Hit & Run Asylum Seeker to stay in UK)

[The Funktopus]

I can't see how much more in the wrong this chap could have been, yet not only is he given a paltry 4 months inside, but then given permanent leave to remain, almost as if he were being rewarded for his actions. I normally despise the "Broken Britain" bandwagon, but this ruling is the height of farce, and just underlines how dysfunctional and out of touch with reality our legal system has become.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

Country is a joke. "Proud to be British" No i dont think so.......

 

[[TW]Fox]

Two issues here which people are treating as one and getting all Daily Mail about it.

He did not cause her death by his driving therefore he was not charged for that offence. Get over that, forget about it - it wasn't his fault she died. If it wasn't his car she jumped out in front of it may have been somebody elses - if you were driving the same thing would have happebed.

Next.

He was charged with a number of offenses, and has no right to remain in this country, therefore attempts were made by THIS COUNTRY to deport him. These attempts have now been thwarted by an OUTSIDE INFLUENCE - the Human Rights Act.

So can all those whinging about the UK please stop and think? The only thing this country has had to do with the decision was it's membership of the EU in the first place and thats a whole can of worms.

 

[AndyT]

Lethal injection. In the head.

 

[jake108]

Country is a joke. "Proud to be British" No i dont think so.......

I wonder if he will re-offend when he gets out to be honest, maybe then we will give him a UK passport and free citizenship.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

Wether or not he had killed the girl, the fact still stands that his actions where almost certainly a direct contributor to the death of the girl.

Saying it could have happened to anyone is irrelevant, the fact is he was behind the wheel of a car he should not of been driving and had he not been there this "accident" would not of happened, by all means the girl may have been run over by someone else on the same road by a different car but that didnt happen.

Using that as a basis for the defense is no different that me going out and knifing someone and saying "well it was going to happen eventually anyway", thats not how it works, his actions were direct contributor that lead to the death of that girl, he should be responsible for his actions. end of.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Saying it could have happened to anyone is irrelevant, the fact is he was behind the wheel of a car he should not of been driving and had he not been there this "accident" would not of happened

You cannot run a legal system like that, to do so would be ridiculous.

Lets imagine you are banned from driving - but you decided to go for a quick drive. You shouldn't be on the road. You pull up to a junction and stop, and somebody else slams into you and destroys your car and seriously injures you.

Would you be happy if you were told no action would be taken because you 'shouldnt have been on the road'?

If you were to do as you say you could quite easily end up with all sorts of problems. What if you park your car in a bus lane to nip to a postbox and I smash into it and die? Is that accidently suddenly YOUR fault because you were breaking the law and your car shouldnt have been there? Would you be happy to go to prison for that?

The legal system agrees with me before you all start telling me I'm wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I dont believe this guy should be here. But it seems my reasons are different to yours..

Using that as a basis for the defense is no different that me going out and knifing someone and saying "well it was going to happen eventually anyway", thats not how it works, his actions were direct contributor that lead to the death of that girl, he should be responsible for his actions. end of.

That is a completely different scenario entirely

 

[Destination]

again where has he killed?
someone died, that does not mean he killed.
more assumptions, he has not killed in the eyes of the law and as such judges can not base it on biased assumptions.
.

This is what I do find interesting, and I believe that it is something that should change.
The law should be altered in two sections, firstly, to refelct that any driving while disqualified should be responsible for anything that happens within that motor vehicle, avoidable or not.
The precedence is already there regarding collisions involving a cyclist, current law demonstrates this to be the drivers fault, a late change under labour.
So set a law that driving whilst disqualified has tremendous possible implications.
Secondly, the immigration laws are a mess, and need to be clarified. Appeal process works on facts as acidhell2 has stated, and if they are speaking of the deprivation of a child from their convicted criminal father who drives down the street with children under his car wheels and then leave said child to die, then indeed as he was only convicted of a minor offense, he shouldn't be deported. However, if the law was changed to reflect immigrants, asylum seekers, non-citizens breaking the law within the country will be expelled despite their home status. Then the judges can apply it appropriately.

What I would like to know is if legal aid paid for this guys appeal, and if it did, a radical overhaul of the legal aid system to blanket remove it from non-citizens might lead to complete removal of these decisions by the question never being posed in the first place.
That too can be done, as it is the case in many countries of the world. You get what you pay for, except in the Uk where we pay for you to get more than you are entitled to.


We should be arguing for a rapid change in the law, not debating how awful it is this happens, fix the broken legal system, rather than talk BS about it on a forum.


How many of you outraged folks are going to write to your MP? Or email them, or collect a petition? Do that, make the change! Then come back to the forums and say how some good came out of this mess.

 

[GreatAuk]

I think with something obviously planned and wrong like driving while banned, and then running off from the accident, the guy should be deported. If he's on asylum, it should be a privilege to live in the UK, and people who abuse privileges... don't deserve them. I don't care about his family life - I'm sure they could follow him if they wanted.

So if the issue that stopped him being deported was the human rights act, I wish some government figure would grow some balls and just ignore it sometimes.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The law should be altered in two sections, firstly, to refelct that any driving while disqualified should be responsible for anything that happens within that motor vehicle, avoidable or not.

This is completely ridiculous - mostly becuase it would end up on people who really *are* at fault for something getting away with it just because the driver is banned. I mean seroiusly? What next - pull out in front of somebody like a prat, cause a huge smash and get away with it because the other guy was banned? How is that even remotely sensible?

The precedence is already there regarding collisions involving a cyclist, current law demonstrates this to be the drivers fault, a late change under labour.

Citation needed. I recall plans but never legislation.

 

[Patient Keeper]

This only fuels the rise of the right wing, it will be a great day when it comes and we can install some sense back into our society. Because unfortunately, it is only extreme parties who dare even discuss the issues that truley **** the entire population. We might have one we can be proud of again

 

[[TW]Fox]

. Because unfortunately, it is only extreme parties who dare even discuss the issues that truley **** the entire population. We might have one we can be proud of again

Seriously, the opinions in this thread are just daft - why not try and understand what happened BEFORE you spout off?

Now, two senior immigration judges have rejected a final appeal by the UK Border Agency to have him deported.

For those who struggle with reading, this means..

THE GOVERNMENT TRIED TO DEPORT THIS GUY BUT WERE LEGALLY PREVENTED FROM DOING SO.

The Government TRIED to kick him out. But our legal system, which the government are not above, prevented this becuase of the European Human Rights Act.

 

[Patient Keeper]

Seriously, the opinions in this thread are just daft - why not try and understand what happened BEFORE you spout off?



For those who struggle with reading, this means..

THE GOVERNMENT TRIED TO DEPORT THIS GUY BUT WERE LEGALLY PREVENTED FROM DOING SO.

The Government TRIED to kick him out. But our legal system, which the government are not above, prevented this becuase of the European Human Rights Act.

My point proven

 

[Patient Keeper]

Also, I'm sure insurance has a different view to who's fault it is while driving while banned. Anything that happens while you are driving while banned, is your fault. If he wasn't on the road, she wouldn't be dead.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Also, I'm sure insurance has a different view to who's fault it is while driving while banned. Anything that happens while you are driving while banned, is your fault.

He wasn't insured, therefore the insurance companies opinion is irrelevent.

Although if you were driving whilst 5 times over the drink drive limit, and you crashed into somebody elses car - guess what, your insurance company is legally obligated to pay out for the third parties car despite your illegal drink driving..

If he wasn't on the road, she wouldn't be dead.

If she hadn't have stepped out into the road in front of a car she wouldnt be dead either, if she hadn't have stopped to tie her shoelace she'd have crossed the road before he arrived, etc etc repeat ad finitum.

You can argue all you want - the legal system agrees with my take on it. You don't judge a crime based on other crimes.

The key point here is that if he *had* have had a driving license and insurance, the child would still be dead. It wasn't his lack of a license or insurance that killed the girl. It was her stepping out in front of a car without looking, giving the driver no time to react. If it was deemed to be his driving that was at fault, he would also have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

He wasn't, therefore it's pretty clear there was no evidence his actual driving was at fault.

 

[cyclops12]

I wonder if he will re-offend when he gets out to be honest, maybe then we will give him a UK passport and free citizenship.

This happend back in 2003, he was already refused entry into the uk and was waiting to be deported.

Yes he did re-offend, he was cought driving again with no insurance or licence and on a ban only this time he was made subject to community supervision for two years, banned from driving for three years and made subject to a 7pm to 7am curfew for four months.

 

[cyclops12]

This is completely ridiculous - mostly becuase it would end up on people who really *are* at fault for something getting away with it just because the driver is banned. I mean seroiusly? What next - pull out in front of somebody like a prat, cause a huge smash and get away with it because the other guy was banned? How is that even remotely sensible?



Citation needed. I recall plans but never legislation.

Not sure if it got made law but they was trying for it fox, if this artical is true that is.
Any idea if it got kicked out or still ongoing ?



The case prompted outrage after he was jailed for four months for driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident.

Campaigners called for an Amy's Law, to make causing death while disqualified from driving to be made a recognised offence with stiffer penalties.

Hyndburn MP Greg Pope and Ribble Valley MP Nigel Evans backed the campaign and a Bill is on its third reading in Parliament.



http://www.blackburncitizen.co.uk/news/blackburn/866858.Grieving_dad_asks__how_could_he__/

 

[[TW]Fox]

Campaigners called for an Amy's Law, to make causing death while disqualified from driving to be made a recognised offence with stiffer penalties.

This is what happens when we allow emotion into our legal system - you get silly un-required laws named after victims.

There is absolutely no need for such a law. If you are driving dangerously and cause death, there is already a law which you will be punished under - Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

If you are driving completely normally but are disqualified from driving, you should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for that offence - driving whilst disqualified. The fact that whilst you were driving whilst disqualified somebody else was negligent and stepped out in front of the car giving you zero time to react is totally irrelevent - the crime commited remains and should remain the same.

He did two things wrong - he left the scene of an accident and he was driving without a license. He was charged and served time for both of these offences. Just like he would have done had he hit a lamp-post.

The fact he hit a pedestrian was deemed entirely the fault of the pedestrian, not the driver.

What is wrong here is not the way the initial offence was handled, what is wrong in this story is that the ridiculous Human Rights Act, where everyone has a 'right' and nobody seems to have any 'responsibilities', has prevented our government from deporting this criminal.

 

[Westyfield2]

Jeez.... How come Fox is moreless the only person thinking rationally about this?


She stepped out in front of a car. It is therefore not the car drivers fault, it could have been you or I driving the car. Even if it was Bin-Laden driving the car, it's not his fault. She was on the road.... which is where cars belong. People belong on the pavement. Simples.

Of-course he shouldn't be done for murder!


However having said all that....
Driving whilst disqualified = scum
Driving without insurance = scum
Failing to stop at the scene of an accident = scum


He's a failed asylum seeker, of-course he shouldn't be in our country any more. Heck our country has already said it doesn't want him! It's just the EU that's making us keep him....

 

[Patient Keeper]

He wasn't insured, therefore the insurance companies opinion is irrelevent.

Although if you were driving whilst 5 times over the drink drive limit, and you crashed into somebody elses car - guess what, your insurance company is legally obligated to pay out for the third parties car despite your illegal drink driving..



If she hadn't have stepped out into the road in front of a car she wouldnt be dead either, if she hadn't have stopped to tie her shoelace she'd have crossed the road before he arrived, etc etc repeat ad finitum.

You can argue all you want - the legal system agrees with my take on it. You don't judge a crime based on other crimes.

The key point here is that if he *had* have had a driving license and insurance, the child would still be dead. It wasn't his lack of a license or insurance that killed the girl. It was her stepping out in front of a car without looking, giving the driver no time to react. If it was deemed to be his driving that was at fault, he would also have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

He wasn't, therefore it's pretty clear there was no evidence his actual driving was at fault.

People like you will be among those deported. It is ridiculous how you can't see commonsense rather than nitpicking at ridiculous terminologies in the legal system.

He shouldn't have been driving, he shouldn't have been on the road, we shouldn't be wasting money on this ridiculous case, and lastly he shouldn't even be in this country. Yet the result is that someone's daughter is dead and we yet again side with the 'ethnic' minority for fear of infringing on their 'rights' while once again alienating the innocent.