What planet do judges come from?

If I have read it correctly he was imprisoned while the authorities tried to establish where he came from.

He could have told them and then they could have sent him back.
 
While a little strange the judge has merely upheld the laws of the country and the laws are indeed very sensible. How would you like if you were illegally locked up in prison with no way out for months on end. Would you want a pat on the back or damages awarded?

The fact of the matter is his legal status in the UK is still being investigated and his criminal offenses still to be prosecuted. Maybe he will get some hefty fines later, imprisonment or deportation.
 
Harold Wilson being elected as Labour Prime Minister in 1964?

Could have been although I'll wait and see if that is what shoes was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_in_the_United_Kingdom

A few notable disasters: births of Nigel Farage and Ross Kemp, and government decides to build Milton Keynes.

I'm surprised that Prince Edward's birth and Ian Fleming's death don't register more highly on the catastrophe scale...

My point in case, he's being compensated on the basis of just his false imprisonment, despite how much money he has cost the country with all the felonies he has committed, the the whole legal system is a joke.

Your point in case is that the judges shouldn't deal with only the instant case? Happily or sadly, depending on your point of view, that does go against the basic principles of our legal system - it's perhaps worth pointing out that they've been essentially the same for centuries. While it might not seem entirely equitable based on an individual case there has to be some form of sanction levied for illegal imprisonment to prevent it becoming viewed as simply an acceptable risk for bodies who deal with such cases.
 
Thats what Multiculturalism and Enrichment gives you, nothing but vermin leaving countries and saying they are a "political refugee"

Country is a joke

The case has nothing to do with Multiculturalism or Enrichment. For starters he is an illegal asylum seeker not a legal immigrant. And immigrants and asylum seekers are for the most part anything but "vermin". there are always some bad eggs, just like there are in your favourite white skinned, blond haired Aryan super race in your perverse ideological view of "Native Britons"
 
While a little strange the judge has merely upheld the laws of the country and the laws are indeed very sensible. How would you like if you were illegally locked up in prison with no way out for months on end. Would you want a pat on the back or damages awarded?

The fact of the matter is his legal status in the UK is still being investigated and his criminal offenses still to be prosecuted. Maybe he will get some hefty fines later, imprisonment or deportation.

Be asking myself why I came to this country!

He stowed away on a ship, came to a foreign country, committed crimes then gets a little upset he is detained, boo ****** hoo

had suffered psychiatric harm as a result of being illegally detained.
:rolleyes:

He was granted legal aid, sigh, who pays for the lawyers?
He was given £17k wonder how much went back to paying for the crimes he committed on people and business and the lawyers used in his case.

Why should it be up to the taxpayer and Home Office to investigate where he is from, chuck him in a dingy and tow him out to the sea, let someone else look after him.

/rant
 
Is legal aid not a basic human right? You don't really have a leg to stand on here...

To whom, any human being, what about aliens from another universe can they qualify.

I agree with people needing help but people like this, that come to the country and do nothing but commit crime, deserve no help, sometimes I wish I lived in the 1800s
 
it's perhaps worth pointing out that they've been essentially the same for centuries.

Times change, the UK is a very very different place to that of 300 hundred years ago - it might be a good idea to keep our law in accordance.

Your point in case is that the judges shouldn't deal with only the instant case?

My point was, why didn't the case allow for facts of his criminal convictions in the determination of the compensation..

When he did wrong onto us, we have to payout (imprisonment etc)

When we do wrong onto him, we have to payout (compensation)

Do you see the logic.. I don't.
 
Times change, the UK is a very very different place to that of 300 hundred years ago - it might be a good idea to keep our law in accordance.

Deciding that basic legal principles aren't something you like much isn't generally a good idea, it is quite simply one of the foundations of our whole legal system. It would be a bit like suggesting that the premise of innocent until proven guilty is something you don't really fancy all that much these days - just because the Terrorism Act 2006 arguably takes this approach doesn't make it right.

You may not appreciate or like the finer (or even the blunter) points of our legal system but compare it to many, even most, and it's pretty damn good overall. There are undoubtedly issues with occasional cases and arguably with some of our more recent legislation (RIPA 2000 I'm looking at you amongst others) but the basic principles of our legal system are as sound and as applicable as they always have been.

My point was, why didn't the case allow for facts of his criminal convictions in the determination of the compensation..

When he did wrong onto us, we have to payout (imprisonment etc)

When we do wrong onto him, we have to payout (compensation)

Do you see the logic.. I don't.

Yes, I do see the logic. The judge may have taken his convictions into account when sentencing (you may note he rejected the claims for aggravated damages) although it doesn't say but in essence there is a need for public bodies to be held accountable when they detain people illegally - that's what the fine is for and to compensate Mr Mjemer for being held illegally. Human rights aren't there just for granting to people we like, if you're going to arbitrarily apply them then you might as well not have them at all.

However as D.P. points out there is no guarantee that Mr Mjemer won't subsequently be fined anyway for his offences.
 
I'd have thought that the need for protection from arbitrary and indefinite detention would be obvious, but I guess not.

Hold on a minute. They are trying to find out his country of origin. And he is withholding that information from authorities (and lying 5 times about it). So they have to give him a house to hold him in whilst he makes up his mind as and when to tell them where he's from?

The question: "Where are you from?" is not hard to answer.
 
Deciding that basic legal principles aren't something you like much isn't generally a good idea, it is quite simply one of the foundations of our whole legal system. It would be a bit like suggesting that the premise of innocent until proven guilty is something you don't really fancy all that much these days - just because the Terrorism Act 2006 arguably takes this approach doesn't make it right.

You may not appreciate or like the finer (or even the blunter) points of our legal system but compare it to many, even most, and it's pretty damn good overall. There are undoubtedly issues with occasional cases and arguably with some of our more recent legislation (RIPA 2000 I'm looking at you amongst others) but the basic principles of our legal system are as sound and as applicable as they always have been.



Yes, I do see the logic. The judge may have taken his convictions into account when sentencing (you may note he rejected the claims for aggravated damages) although it doesn't say but in essence there is a need for public bodies to be held accountable when they detain people illegally - that's what the fine is for and to compensate Mr Mjemer for being held illegally. Human rights aren't there just for granting to people we like, if you're going to arbitrarily apply them then you might as well not have them at all.

However as D.P. points out there is no guarantee that Mr Mjemer won't subsequently be fined anyway for his offences.

We'll have to agree to disagree, we clearly have very opposing views on the subject :p

If I had things my way, he be deported without a penny in his pocket.
 
Coming on OcUk is getting more and more like going on the British Union of Fascists every day. Never seen so many hateful people towards someone who was wrongly imprisoned in my life.

It seems the judge was doing his job and not being ****.
 
We'll have to agree to disagree, we clearly have very opposing views on the subject :p

If I had things my way, he be deported without a penny in his pocket.

If you were locked up for no reason at all for a year would you want compensation? IF you were told since you had a parking ticket that you aren't entitled to anything, tough luck you spent a year in prison, so what.

If you went to Spain on holiday and got locked up illegally for no reason for a year and instead of getting compensation you got nothing because you aren't Spanish?
 
Coming on OcUk is getting more and more like going on the British Union of Fascists every day. Never seen so many hateful people towards someone who was wrongly imprisoned in my life.

It seems the judge was doing his job and not being ****.

Not agreeing with the decision of the judge does not make you a fascist.
 
Back
Top Bottom