Forum Topic

Philip Lawrence's killer allowed to stay

I really do think that we are stupid in this country - why have the Immigration and Appeals Tribunal said that it would be a breach of his 'human rights' to deport him to Italy? It's hardly Guantanamo Bay is it? I really hope the Home Office kick up a stink over this. So - he doesn't speak Italian and has no relations there - tough, he hasn't earned the right to stay here. Why is it we never stand up for ourselves here. Giving asylum to oppressed people whose lives are threatened is one thing, thinking a convicted murderer has earned any 'rights' let alone 'human' ones is an insult. I do feel for Mr. Lawrence's family, what a kick in the teeth.

Vanessa Smith ● 6494d19 Comments

FraserAnd the French would not tolerate this judgement, they only obey the laws that they want to. Apparently Mr and Mrs Lawrence and her children have no right to family life, and I don't think for one moment, that the "Human Rights lawyers" have been to see her, there is no big pay day for them! The bloody country is going to the dogs, an 11 year old boy shot in the head tonight. Family men attempting to protect their homes and property from these yobs, are killed while doing so, and all some people are concerned about is this toerags human rights........words fail me. Cue the luvvies!

Account suspended ● 6492d

Why am I not surprised that you would come out with this sort of crap. It's no wonder we are in the position we are in, in this country, because of the luvvies on this and the W4 forum.I also noticed that not one word of condolence from you to the Lawrence family, although on reflection one should not be surprised should they? The sentence he received for a cold blooded murder, was and is a travesty of justice, life should mean life, until you die. And have you forgotten the British paedophile who was kicked out of Australia, straight on to our benefit system. As I have said before much to the chagrin of the left, we are mugs to stand for it, anywhere else there would be riots! If you are born in ITALY you are ITALIAN end of, no matter how long you have lived here!Just answer one question for me Dan, "If this scroat/toerag murdered a close family member, what would you consider an appropriate sentence"? would you give him the benefit of the doubt, no PC answers please"?

Account suspended ● 6492d

“this thug could get on a plane and return to the U.K. as an EU citizen”.- Absolutely correct Vanessa. This is why the Human Rights Act wouldn’t be the primary justification for Mr Chindamo coming back to the UK. The main reason he’d return is EU Directive 2004/58/EC, which enshrines the “rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within territory of the Member States”. This piece of legislation came into effect just over a year ago and itself rests on earlier legislation - Articles 12, 18, 40, 44 and 52 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Go back even earlier and the genesis is the Treaty of Rome’s accent on “the free movement of persons” that “constitutes one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market”.The Home Office would be stupid to appeal the Chindamo case. Remember the furore last year around John Reid and foreign prisoners being released and not removed to the country on their passport? For EU nationals at least, this would’ve been by virtue of EU Directive 2004/58/EC.The furore around Mr Chindamo’s removal (or not) is an inevitable consequence of EU law (which now accounts for around 84% of British legislation).

Fraser Pearce ● 6492d

Happens in OZ. Briton has taken back all sorts of crims recently.

Neil Chippendale ● 6493d

Typical!

Vanessa Smith ● 6493d

I suspect the solicitor has made the classic misunderstanding of the difference between 'removal' and 'deportation'. What Immigration does now is remove people. They do this because it's an admin thing that reduces the amount of appeals offenders get. If removed, someone can, in theory, come straight back to the UK and the cycle begins again.Deportation means they are banned from the UK indefinately. They can apply for the deportation order to be revoked but this will not normally be done within 3 years but does carry a right of appeal. I have to admit I do not know enough about EEA regs. It's a bit of a minefield and I don't think anyone understands them fully, particularly the Govt. who agreed it in the first place.I don't know how true this is, but I have heard that we are the only country in Europe that signed up to the HRA in full, which is why we are the only European country to suffer from these problems.Everyone else signed up to everything EXCEPT Arts 3 (torture) and 8 (family life). I think this explains why terrorists and murderers end up here and not Germany!

Claire Peleschka ● 6493d

I think you may well be right about the tribunal 'bottling it', I heard a solicitor say today that contrary to what I thought anyway, this thug could get on a plane and return to the U.K. as an EU citizen - brilliant! So even if by some miracle the Home Office appeal should triumph - which I doubt, as if this goes to the High Court I think we can all hazard a guess at their decision, it seems we can't get rid of this person anyway.

Vanessa Smith ● 6493d

As I understand it he has been allowed under Art 8 of the ECHR which is right to family life. This is NOT an absolute right which means that there are exceptions to breaches. It is a 4 step test1 - Is there a family / private life?2 - Will that life be interfered with if removed / deported (there is a difference although most MPs and Daily Mail journalists don't realise this)?3 - Is the interference lawful? - the answer to this is always yes because of the Immigration legality4 - Is the interference proportionate?The argument in Art 8 cases in Immigration nearly always falls to be considered under point 4.Having presented Immigration HR appeals, I would have argued that it is proportionate to interfere due to the seriousness of the crime, condusive to public good and, the fact that those that support him in this thread seem to have missed - HIS FAMILY CAN GO BACK TO ITALY WITH HIM. That they may choose not to is their decision and not one that the UK should be stuck with.His mother and subsequently her children are only in the UK in the first place because she married this Italian scrote, got Italian citizenship and then came here. She has presumably lived in Italy for some time and could go back there.There is also the fact that this 'child' is now over 18 and is classed as an adult and therefore, legally, does not have a 'family life' with his mother or siblings.I do not know how we lost this case and EEA regulations etc are a different ball game to standard Immigration laws but having some experience with the IAT, I imagine that they bottled it knowing that the Home Office would appeal and that the Court of Appeal would sort it out (hopefully) for them.

Claire Peleschka ● 6493d

"What doubt is it you think this killer should get the benefit of Dan?"When somebody commits a crime of violence it is impractical for us to lock them up for the rest of their days. Some crimes will merit this but in the vast majority of cases there will come a time when they have to be released. As I said earlier I think in this case the time has come too soon but the person has served his sentence, has apparently shown genuine remorse, committed the crime when he was young and has worked to stop other youths doing the same thing. The case of the Australians deporting a paedophile to us surely illustrates our double standards. In this instance the offender was clearly a British citizen and very much our problem - although he had been in Australia a long time much of it had been spent in jail! We may not have wanted him back but the Australians were well within their rights to have sent him to us. This would not have been the case with Philip Lawrence's murderer.

Dan Evans ● 6493d

Hang on - didn't the Aussies just recently deport some paedophile back here who'd been out there for donkey's years? What doubt is it you think this killer should get the benefit of Dan?

Vanessa Smith ● 6493d

Well said Jorgen. Another point is that his only family in Italy is his estranged father, a drug dealer with convictions for violence who is currently in jail. He is quite clearly British as opposed to Italian.Consider if the situation was reversed and an Italian with a British passport was convicted of murder and then deported to this country. We would be up in arms about them dumping their problems on us.I have reservations about the length of sentence he was given but we should accept the possibility that here is a man who made a dreadful mistake in his youth and has taken the punishment he was given and now should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Dan Evans ● 6493d

Well I must admit I wouldn't go down the road of the death penalty, however, I think as has been said so many times before, it's past the time when 'rights' are given more priority than responsibilities. This blasted legislation seems to have caused far more problems than it's worth, either that or the people that make up these Tribunals do not live in the real world, which I suspect is the case. They need to be less right-on and a bit more realistic, remove head from a*** I think. What I don't understand is when the authorities go to great lengths to deport some poor sod who's lived here for years as a model citizen, but falls foul of the regulations because one of their parents was a citizen of another country but hadn't relaised it made any difference, or some other daft reason, yet allow the most bizarre array of ne'er do wells to stay because of their 'human rights'.

Vanessa Smith ● 6494d

Jorgan please! How many con's have in the past turned to religion or other good things and said they are reformed but once out go back to their old ways. He should not be let out until he is too old to do any harm to anyone else. He should of faced the death penalty.

Edward Fitzgerald ● 6494d

It is heartening Jorgen that in advance of applying for parole he is spending his time working against crime.

Sarah Felstead ● 6494d

Tough luck. He's Italian so should be kicked out.Here in OZ they deport criminals who have lived in Australia for well over 30 years.

Neil Chippendale ● 6494d

I was of the same opinion as all of you until I got some facts about the case through a TV documentary.The killer only lived in italy till he was 4 or so and the only reason he still has an italian passport is because until he was 15 and commited the crime he was not in need of a British passport. After he passed 15 he could not get a British passport because he was convicted. All the rest of his faily have British passports, this guy grew up in British schools, had British friends etc etc. The only thing that makes him diffeent from any British criminal is tha he lived his first 4 years in Italy. I think the decsion was correct and he should be allowed to stay in Britain. He is also a completely changed person and is spending time working against crime.

Jorgen Molna ● 6494d

Well said, Vanessa.One argument I read was the Killer couldn't speak Italian -there is always his time left inside to learn.Apart from the Lawrence's concerns I also worry for the rest of the Community as the Killer will probably be elevated to hero status on release by the gangs he has been separated from.  Should he be given parole?Good grief ...  I shall have to take 'The Political Compass' test again!

Sarah Felstead ● 6494d

I couldn't agree more Vanessa.We need to sort the wheat from the chaff with regard to immigration and asylum.

Keith Iddon ● 6494d

I think it is disgusting that "Life" doesn't mean life in this country, what about Mrs Lawrence and her families "Human rights". We should start a petition against the decision and the whole human rights nonsense, and while we are at it the health and safety mob can get on their bikes as well. This is a really awful result I don't think the government will do any good in their appeal either.

Helen Fogarth ● 6494d