Whoops!
Attention, main stream media boys:
A slight correction needs to be made to everyone's line on Mr. Clarke's recent difficulties. Notice the similarity between the following news items? Perhaps we do need a hard look at media bias and distortion...
source
source
source
And now this from the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman:
source
They're all wrong. According to the former judge and lawyer Gerald Butler QC, speaking on Today in rather cultured, mild tones, the word 'considered' paints a very different picture from what really goes on. In fact, the judge weighs everything up, including the defendant's past record, if any, and recommends that they be deported. The actual decision and action to deport is left to the Home Secretary. Now, to me, that sounds like you deport the chap forthwith unless there's some compelling reason not to, like a change in circumstances.
Remember, every time you read 'considered' someone's swallowed the official line, which seeks to downplay the insult done to the whole judicial system by failing to carry out the judge's specific instructions.
I've offered to buy them a dictionary already, but here are the two relevant definitions:
Recommend: To give advice or counsel
Now let's rewrite the first paragraph of everyone's article:
That's better.
Up to a point. Butler's
Up to a point. Butler's pointing out that the judges will have recommended deportation, not just suggested they be considered, is important, but only for those cases where such a recommendation was made.
Under the rules brought in by Blunkett, convicted non-UK citizens (i.e., the rest of the cases) should be considered for deportation. So they should be talking about two caqtegories, really.
Yes, John, there are
Yes, John, there are obviously several categories depending on the precise wording of the judgement in each case. I should really have made it clear that it's the cases where the trial judge recommends deportation that are the scandal - I'm more outraged at the Home Office failing to act fully on the judgement rather than the 'isn't it awful having these foreigners roaming the streets' bullcrap.
I'd be interested in the figures for how many cases are actually where the judge recommended deportation, which I think happens a fair bit. However, the only people who know this are the Home Office....
There's also the hypocrisy of Home Secretaries (Blunkett particularly) sounding off about weak judges in the tabloids while failing to actually listen to their recommendations (i.e. do their job properly) in favour of short-term tabloid-pleasing initiatives. That makes my blood boil.
At the time this story first
At the time this story first broke, last Tuesday, the figures were as follows (according to the BBC):
Total released without being considered for deportation: 1023
Of those, number recommended at time of sentencing for deportation on completion of sentence: 160
Total located at that time: 107
Of those, 14 had originally been recommended by the court for deportation. In fact, only 5 had actually been deported because the other 9 were "considered inappropriate for removal". No reasons for this decision were stated.
John's right. Not all of the
John's right. Not all of the 1,023 were recommended for deportation but all of them should have been considered for deportation by the Home Office.
According to the BBC, "about 160 of the prisoners were subject to specific orders from courts recommending their removal." I'd agree that these are the really major scandal.
Judges recommended that these 160 criminals be deported so I don't think it's unreasonable to say that deportation was part of the punishment decided by the courts. In these cases, it's doubtful whether the PMOS can justify the claim that "they had served their sentence".
Thanks all. Whipping my
Thanks all. Whipping my abacus out:
Out of 1023:
15.5% were recommended for deportation
Of those located 13% were recommended for deportation
Of those located and recommended for deportation 35% were deported.
Extrapolating...
Those whose position is unknown but whom the judge recommended for deportation = 160 - 14 = 146
If you keep up the 35% rate that's 51 who should already be out of the country. I'd be interested to know why judges are overruled 65% of the time, though.
I think Garry has a case for saying the judge's recommendation should stand unless there's a good reason not to, so in that case it's part of the sentence. So in addition to not considering the 850 or so who were to be included by Blunkett's changes, there's a sub-scandal of 146 people whom the Home Office haven't ensured completed the sentence as handed down. Not too clever, really, since that's one of the primary functions of, er, the Home Office.