Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Have Blair & Clarke Been Stymied by an EU Directive?

Further to what Blair and Clarke have said today I thought I'd share this little nugget with you. I'm no lawyer, but...

Automatic deportation for EU nationals convicted of criminal offences in the UK are specifically prohibited by EU Directive 2004/38, which states that ‘Expulsion orders may not be issued by the host Member State as a penalty or legal consequence of a custodial penalty’. "Article 33 of the directive prevents the automatic removal of those convicted of offences, and whilst it does allow for deportation as a sanction, the blanket use of deportation orders is prohibited by the Directive, which specifically states: 'Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted'. The Directive entered into force on the 30th April 2006.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

It seems that we've no sooner thrown off the shackles of religion than the void has been filled by a load of self-appointed, nit-picking legal pedants who see it as their role in life to tell us what we can and can't do and think. The Law should stick to crime and stop interfering in politics.

BondWoman said...

It doesn't change the situation enormously from what it has been since 1960s and 1970s, but it does institute particular protections for those who have been resident for ten years or more, or for minors. However, in any event, even if you chucked an EU citizen out, there would be relatively little to stop them coming back again.

Bob Piper said...

I do think you should credit your loony wing in UKIP when you nick pieces from their website Iain.

David Cameron Mp said...

As I pointed out in a previous post
BULLSHIT!
Another empty sound bite and another example of Cameron's uselessness for not pointing it out.
Blair has been promising to get tough on a variety of issues for 9 years, as did Blunkett, as is Clarke, forgive me if I greet this statement with a smirk, a yawn and a scratch of my bollocks as my mind wanders elsewhere.
ps
listen to www.infowars.com on the net
thank you

Ranting Guttersnipe said...

It may cause some problems but not as many as we would like as it only appears to apply to EU nationals. Still it should do the Anti EU lobby some good.

Anonymous said...

Richard Noth has more on this issue over at the EU Referendum blog here:-

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/05/not-of-this-world.html

So if the only way to deal with this issue properly (and with the many other important matters facing our country such as the disastrous CAP, Common Fisheries Policy, £12.2 bn annual membership fee and all the rest) is to leave the EU, would you support such a move?

kingbongo said...

Blair only said this to try and get some support from the Sun, he has no intention of actually doing something about it.

Anonymous said...

That applies to EU nationals, as you say, Iain. There is nothing (in that directive, on a cursory reading) to stop automatic deportation of, say, Somalis.

Anonymous said...

The relevant part of the directive seems to be Articles 27 and 28, particularly paras 1 and 2 of Article 27:

'Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens
and their family members, irrespective of nationality, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These
grounds shall not be invoked to serve economic ends.

'Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking of such measures.

'The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated
from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted.'

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/citizenship/movement/doc/table_correspondence_en.pdf

Hayek's Grandad said...

So if it can be used as a sanction does that mean it's still allowed but it has to be done by the judge and not by the government? But surely if the government wanted to they could simply make it a statutory penalty?

Anonymous said...

That is the first time I have ever been pleased to see an EU Directive. So will Labour now correct their policy proposals or more likely go ahead with them providing the impression of action, then blame the EU when nothing changes? The Tories should make capital of this now whilst Clarke is still on the backfoot.

James Graham (Quaequam Blog!) said...

I'm not a lawyer either but I don't see how that is remotely problematic. Clarke today announced a PRESUMPTION of deportation, not automatic deportation. We have a presumption of innocense in this country, but it doesn't mean that people aren't found guilty.

Lord Levy Knew My Father said...

Maybe we could have them all deported for homophobia, that seems to be the crime du jour and really gets the police excited.

Anonymous said...

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction here? Acdcording to what isbeing said, it seems likely that we cannot deport eu nationals (at least with any hope of them not returning on the next ferry).

But the government has managed to place some very strict restrictions on the rights of British football hooligans (eu citizens for the moment, at least). If our government can prevent some of our criminals exercising an eu right, surely it can prevent some of theirs doing the same.

Or am I applying logical argument to a debate where logic is unwelcome?

RM

Anonymous said...

Slightly off topic, but I'm sure that your readers will be reassured to find out that Britain is not the only country where the pols are having trouble. In fact here in South Africa we are having two very similar scandals.

Firstly we have the deputy leader of the ruling party, Jacob Zuma. Apparently he bonked a lady not his wife at his home in Natal. Unfortunately for him, the lady in question then went and laid rape charges against him. The country has been agog with the rather explicit testimony being given by the two parties in court. No one denies the sex, the dispute is whether Miss X consented to Mr Zuma's advances. The trial has now concluded and we await the verdict of the court. Mr Zuma's reputation has been thoroughly trashed however. Not least by the revellation that he, the former head of the President's Commission on HIV/Aids, considers taking a hot shower sufficient protection from infection after unprotected sex with a person with HIV.

Then yesterday the gods obviously felt that Africa was falling behind in the scandal stakes and took a hand in matters and arranged a prisoner release scandal for us as well.

According to news reports two racist fuckwits on trial for treason, murder etc. managed to walk free from the courthouse cells during a recess in their trial. Rumour has it that the policemen supposedly guarding the cells were off having lunch.

So far there have been no calls for the Minister for Safety and Security to resign, but this is Africa - we expect the local pols to be shameless, self-serving b'stards.

So my fellow Brits I'll bet you're so proud that the colonies are still following in your footsteps every step of the way. Or has the British government decided to copy Third World practices? I'll leave it for you to decide.

RM