Licence to kill?

For those who pooh poohed the implications of this Bill, David Allen Green, a former government lawyer, writes in Prospect magazine:

The government of the United Kingdom does not say that it wants to kill people, but it does want to be as free as possible from any legal consequences when its agents cause death. Statute by statute, the trend is for the British state to remove any relevant criminal or civil liability from those who make life or death decisions in its name.

********

Ministers do not believe the practical immunity afforded by our political-media culture is enough. The nods and winks to the prosecution service do not provide sufficient cover. Ministers want there to be a formalisation of official protection. Not only must injustice be done, but injustice must be seen to be done, with full legal protection.

If the legislative trend continues, any agent of the state who makes life or death decisions will not face legal liability. There are always calls for police to be safe from prosecution when they kill people. And one day we will end up in a situation where, even if the state becomes reckless about the lives of its citizens, there will be no legal incentive for it to behave otherwise. The UK state may not want its officials and operatives to kill people, but soon there may be no legal consequences if they do.

Now read the bits in between these extracts..

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/up-front/licence-to-kill-and-the-british-state

Border Force staff who enact Priti Patel’s plans to “push back” migrant boats in the Channel could be given immunity from conviction if a refugee dies, officials have confirmed.

From the Guardian article I didn't link to.

Pardon me for finding this worrying.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/uk-border-force-could-be-given-immunity-over-refugee-deaths?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

This is about a clause in a draft Bill. I’m a retired lawyer. I have given an opinion. If you don’t like what I say specifically about the draft clause feel free to seek a second opinion. I don’t deal in hypotheses. Frankly some posters sound on the verge of hysteria. That’s my final word on this ridiculous thread.

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

There is nothing here which suggests BF will flout international law, only posters’ imaginations. The draft Bill does not seek to amend international law.

But it does.

How so, growstuff? The draft Bill only grants certain defences to BF officials in respect of prosecution for the consequences of their lawful actions.

Whitewavemark2

growstuff

Sorry to ask so many questions, but I genuinely don't know the answers.

Do people need paperwork to be in British waters?

If not, are they permitted to sail/row/swim around and, if intercepted by Border Force, claim they had no intention of landing but are just out for the day?

Not if they are refugees. But I can see where you are coming from.

My point is that Border Force doesn't know if a boat in transit is full of refugees or day trippers. If wannabe asylum seekers started using better boats and learnt a few words of French, how would Border Force know what they intended to do?

Whitewavemark2

Would any interference with a boat by BF outside of U.K. waters be deemed to be illegal?

I'm pretty sure it would be.

Would any interference with a boat by BF outside of U.K. waters be deemed to be illegal?

growstuff

Sorry to ask so many questions, but I genuinely don't know the answers.

Do people need paperwork to be in British waters?

If not, are they permitted to sail/row/swim around and, if intercepted by Border Force, claim they had no intention of landing but are just out for the day?

Not if they are refugees. But I can see where you are coming from.

Sorry to ask so many questions, but I genuinely don't know the answers.

Do people need paperwork to be in British waters?

If not, are they permitted to sail/row/swim around and, if intercepted by Border Force, claim they had no intention of landing but are just out for the day?

Germanshepherdsmum

There is nothing here which suggests BF will flout international law, only posters’ imaginations. The draft Bill does not seek to amend international law.

But it does.

I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. If people in transit don't need paperwork, what right has anybody to turn any boat round?

I realise that once the passengers have landed on British soil, they need paperwork, but they could immediately claim asylum according to international law and be absolutely legal. It's then up to the UK whether it accepts any application for asylum.

MerylStreep

growstuff
In answer, yes, all papers and passports have to be shown to customs. That applies to either crossing.

I get that, but what about during the crossing? Do people in transit need to have paperwork?

Germanshepherdsmum

There is nothing here which suggests BF will flout international law, only posters’ imaginations. The draft Bill does not seek to amend international law.

Have you read the U.N law regarding refugees.

How does that square with the BF instructions to turn the boats back?

Good posts Gsm a sensible balance to heated dramatics.??

There is nothing here which suggests BF will flout international law, only posters’ imaginations. The draft Bill does not seek to amend international law.

Well I think that BF will be in direct contradiction to the UN instructions regarding refugees at sea.

Not quite sure how that will work.

But of course the U.K. doesn’t follow international law any more so I guess it doesn’t matter.

growstuff
In answer, yes, all papers and passports have to be shown to customs. That applies to either crossing.

MaizieD

I think quite a few sailing enthusiasts do it all the time. Need papers, of course. MerylStreep would be the one to ask.

Do you need papers to sail or row (or swim) across the Channel? I realise you need them when you land. Is Border Force going to check the paperwork (if needed) before they turn boats back?

Genuine questions because I don't know.

I think quite a few sailing enthusiasts do it all the time. Need papers, of course. MerylStreep would be the one to ask.

A question to people who know more about these things than I do:

Is it illegal for somebody with a small boat to travel from France to the UK and land at a UK port?

But there again, the term un- seaworthy is subjective. Anyone here could say we are sinking and I could reply no, we are not, we are ok, we can make it
It’s a minefield of litigation.

MaizieD

So, Gsm, it's perfectly reasonable to leave a refugee to die if their boat is in difficulties? Using the defence that it was done in good faith?

They have to have reasonable grounds so turning back an unseaworthy craft would presumably be unreasonable?

I haven’t said that Maizie. I’m not speaking about any specific hypothetical actions which BF may or may not take, nor will I, I’m simply emphasising what the draft clause says and the burden of proof.

Frankly they will be leaving themselves wide open to prosecution if it was obvious that the boat would sink, and many of them are in very poor condition.

Cloud funding will almost certainly come into action, and I would support it.

So, Gsm, it's perfectly reasonable to leave a refugee to die if their boat is in difficulties? Using the defence that it was done in good faith?