швабода

[vdc]

Самые свежие новости из дурдома

Property Council to sue State, banks over collapse - The Irish Times - Thu, Mar 24, 2011

AN ORGANISATION representing property investors and developers is to take a class action in the High Court against the Government, the Financial Regulator and the banks over their roles in the collapse of the property market.

The Irish Property Council (IPC) is to outline its plans today for the court proceedings which will set out to apportion responsibility for the collapse.

It says the ruination of the property market has been caused “by the reckless lending of our banks, lack of regulation by our Government and the disregard of prudent advice on fiscal policy by the Government in power”.

The council is to invite developers, house purchasers or investors who are now “total casualties of the collapse” to put forward their names for the court action and a claim for compensation.

ой
то есть еще более свежие
Identity papers challenge upheld - The Irish Times - Fri, Mar 25, 2011

The High Court has struck down as unconstitutional a provision of the Immigration Act making it a criminal offence for a non-national to fail to produce, without "a satisfactory explanation", passport or other identity documents on demand by gardaí.

The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, today upheld a challenge by a West African woman to the constitutionality of Section 12 of the Immigration Act 2004 which requires production of identity documents on demand by gardaí and stipulates failure to do so without "satisfactory explanation" is a criminal offence.

While Section 12 was designed as an immigration control mechanism, "its vagueness is such as to fail basic requirements for the creation of a criminal offence", the judge found. The failure to define the term "satisfactory explanation" created vagueness and uncertainty and "considerable potential" for arbitrary applications of that term by gardaí.

There was no requirement a Garda should have formed a reasonable suspicion a non-national was behaving unlawfully before requiring them to produce a satisfactory explanation for the absent documents, he added. Section 12 was ambiguous and not sufficiently precise to reasonably enable a person to foresee the consequences of their acts or anticipate what form of explanation would suffice to avoid prosecution.

Section 12 also had potential to breach the right against self-incrimination under the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a silent response to a request equated to failure to produce a satisfactory explanation, he added. UK legislation dealing with these situations met the concerns he had outlined, he indicated.

Given his findings, the judge granted a declaration Section 12 is unconstitutional and made an order preventing the prosecution of Ebere Dokie on charges under Section 12 carrying a maximum one year jail sentence and/or a fine of up to ?3,000.

The State had argued Section 12 was a core part of laws for control and regulation of the entry of non-nationals into the State and their obligations while here.

Ms Dokie (40), who claims she is from Liberia and her passport was destroyed in a fire in 1989, was charged under Section 12 after being arrested at Dublin Airport in April 2008 when she, her daughter and two young boys arrived on a flight from Nigeria and attempted to enter the State without any passports.

She claimed she met the boys at Lagos Airport the previous day and, at the request of their father, agreed to take them to Ireland. She claimed the boys were with an agent who had arranged her travel.

The District Court on May 28th, 2008, ruled the Section 12 charge arising from her Dublin Airport arrest was void, but she was rearrested on Chancery Street, Dublin, on May 29th and charged under Section 12 with failing to produce the same identification documents.

The facts of this case "illustrate all to clearly" the serious problems faced in trying to control and deal with undocumented persons here, Mr Justice Kearns said.

Even if he was mistaken Section 12 was unconstitutional due to its arbitrariness, legal uncertainty and offending the principle a person is not obliged to incriminate themselves, he ruled the use of Section 12 in Ms Dokie's case was an unconstitutional use of a legislative provision designed to be deployed in different circumstances.

Because Ms Dokie had arrived at Dublin airport with no identifying documents, the appropriate Section to be applied in her case was Section 11 of the 2004 Act, the validity of which was not challenged in this case, he said.

Section 11 requires every person landing in the State to have a valid passport or equivalent document and to provide this to an immigration officer. Failure to do so is a criminal offence.

Mr Justice Kearns described as "unconvincing" and "far-fetched in the extreme" the prosecution's explanation Section 11 was not used because of some apprehension a forged passport might afford a full defence to Ms Dokie.

While Section 12 might be a more convenient way of dealing with non-nationals who have moved on into the community and are suspected of having no proper identification documents, these were not the circumstances here, This was not a "roadside check" of a person who had integrated into the community.

Section 11 provides for a "once and for all type" offence which seemed more appropriate in this case, he said. Unfairness could arise if Section 12 was deployed where people arrived at airports with no passports. Ms Dokie could be subject to repeated prosecutions and would be guilty of a criminal offence on each occasion.

The High Court previously decided Section 12 was not to be used as a means for identifying a particular person, he also noted.

The judge rejected an additional argument by Ms Dokie that Section 12 was unconstitutional on grounds it was a disproportionate measure enacted by the State. There was a "manifest need" for effective measures to regulate the entry into the State of undocumented non-nationals, he said.

[vc]

Чёт я не понял, т.е. теперь негров без паспортов будут в аэропорту пускать?

[vdc]

Сообщение от vc

Чёт я не понял, т.е. теперь негров без паспортов будут в аэропорту пускать?

А где еще тенантов гадским инвесторам в недвижимость бедным лендлордам найти?

[vc]

Пусть завозят оптом из Нигера, у них коэффициент размножения высокий.

[~Alik~]

По поводу первой статьи, то там есть доля справедливости для house purchasers. Давно была выведена формула, давать ипотеку в размере не более 3-х годичного суммарного дохода семьи. Банки это правило нарушили, чем способствовали спекуляции на рынке недвижимости. К примеру EBS давали с коэффициентом 6.2!

[Goshka]

Сообщение от ~Alik~

По поводу первой статьи,

Первая статья это покраска мавзолея в зелёный цвет.

[~Alik~]

Сообщение от vc

Чёт я не понял, т.е. теперь негров без паспортов будут в аэропорту пускать?

Сообщение от vdc

А где еще тенантов гадским инвесторам в недвижимость бедным лендлордам найти?

Не вижу никакой свЯзи. К примеру мой бывший лендлорд уже в этом бизнесе лет 40, в его владении 60 с лишним домов. Основной контингент его квартиросъёмщиков являются студенты. И бизнес его зависит не от кол-ва приехавших негров, а от кол-ва рождённых детей 18 лет назад. А то, что каждый второй решил лендлордом стать, так это бизнес такой, со своими рисками. Кстати нуждающихся в жилье и без приезжих хватает, в очередях на социальное жильё стоят тысячи людей. И гос-во готово кооперировать с лендлордам в плане расселения нуждающихся, например заключать контракт на long-term lease, short-term rental, или соглашаться на rent allowance.

[vdc]

Сообщение от ~Alik~

И гос-во готово кооперировать с лендлордам в плане расселения нуждающихся, например заключать контракт на long-term lease, short-term rental, или соглашаться на rent allowance.

Вместо того чтобы заселить нуждающихся в ghost estates вместо сноса и сэкономить 5% собираемых налогов

государство оплачивает 50% рынка жилья под сдачу и тем самым поддерживает за счет налогоплательщика цены на рынке, не давая 300,000 лендлордов разориться

теперь продолжение ужастиков



'I told him I was an Irish citizen and left my passport at home. He didn't believe me' - The Irish Times - Sat, Mar 26, 2011

BACKGROUND: Though he is an Irish citizen, Xiaowei Guo was arrested for failing to produce a passport

WHEN A traffic garda stopped Xiaowei Guo in his car in Dublin city centre in November 2008, he didn’t think much of it. He’d never been in trouble with the Garda and, as an Irish citizen, felt he had nothing to fear from the police.

“He asked me to produce my passport and said he suspected I was in breach of immigration law. When I told him I was an Irish citizen and left my passport at home, he didn’t believe me,” says Guo, who arrived in Ireland in 1997 and acquired citizenship in 2003. Guo was arrested for failing to produce a valid passport or other equivalent documents. He was brought to Kevin Street station and detained for three hours until his wife brought his passport to prove his identity.

“It was very humiliating being arrested in rush hour in Dublin city centre. I had worked 10 hours that day and was tired. I asked the garda to come to my house, just three blocks away. He wouldn’t agree and my wife had to travel back from Dún Laoghaire to give the garda the passport,” he says.

“When I left the station the Garda told me not to waste their time and carry my passport on me all the time or face arrest again,” says Guo, who was so angry about his treatment he complained to the Garda Ombudsman.

The ombudsman found the officer had “not been found in breach of discipline as he justified the arrest stating that he had formed a reasonable suspicion at the time that Mr Guo was a non-national”. Under section 12 of the Immigration Act, 2004, non-Irish nationals can face criminal conviction if they fail to produce a passport or equivalent ID on demand to a garda or immigration officer without “a satisfactory explanation”.

Figures compiled by the CSO show the number of people convicted for failing to produce ID was three in 2005, 144 in 2006, 250 in 2007 and 291 in 2008.

There is no data available on the number of Irish or EU citizens asked to produce ID on demand under the Act, or detained at Garda stations. But immigrant and civil rights groups say the draconian nature of section 12 of the 2004 Act has left Irish citizens open to ethnic profiling on the basis of different skin colour.

“We have identified ethnic profiling as a serious problem in Ireland and are very glad the High Court have addressed it. No Irish citizen is required to carry ID and so the requirement of ‘non-nationals’ to produce ID on demand is discriminatory,” said Siobhán O’Donoghue of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland.

“How is a garda or immigration officer to know someone is a citizen or not, and based on our study [they] are clearly making judgments based on colour, accent and appearance,” she said.

The decision by Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns to rule section 12 of the 2004 Act unconstitutional means the Garda can no longer rely on this mechanism to demand presentation of ID on threat of conviction. The Department of Justice said last night it was studying the implications, and whether it should appeal.

It is understood justice officials believe other legal instruments may be used as a basis to demand presentation of ID by non-Irish nationals.

ID on demand ruled unconstitutional - The Irish Times - Sat, Mar 26, 2011

A PROVISION of the Immigration Act forcing non-Irish nationals to produce ID on demand to a garda or face a criminal conviction has been ruled “unconstitutional” by the High Court.

Immigrant groups welcomed the landmark judgment, which they said would help fight the battle against what they described as “racial profiling” by the Garda and immigration authorities.

The president of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, yesterday upheld a challenge by a west African woman to the constitutionality of section 12 of the Immigration Act, 2004, which requires production of identity documents on demand by gardaí, and stipulates that failure to do so without “satisfactory explanation” is a criminal offence.

While section 12 was designed as an immigration control mechanism, “its vagueness is such as to fail basic requirements for the creation of a criminal offence”, the judge found. The failure to define the term “satisfactory explanation” created vagueness and uncertainty and “considerable potential” for arbitrary applications of that term by gardaí.

There was no requirement that a garda should have formed a reasonable suspicion a non-Irish national was behaving unlawfully before requiring them to produce a satisfactory explanation for the absent documents, he added.

Section 12 was not sufficiently precise to reasonably enable a person to foresee the consequences of their acts or anticipate what form of explanation would suffice to avoid prosecution.

It also had potential to breach the right against self-incrimination under the Constitution and article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as a silent response to a request equated to failure to produce a satisfactory explanation, he added. UK legislation dealing with these situations met the concerns he had outlined, he indicated.

The judge granted a declaration that section 12 was unconstitutional and made an order preventing the prosecution of Ebere Dokie on charges under section 12 carrying a maximum one-year jail sentence and/or a fine of up to ?3,000.

The State had argued section 12 was a core part of laws for control and regulation of the entry of foreign nationals into the State and their obligations while here.

Ms Dokie (40), who claims she is from Liberia and that her passport was destroyed in a fire in 1989, was charged under section 12 after her arrest at Dublin airport in April 2008 when she, her daughter and two boys arrived on a flight from Nigeria and tried to enter the State without passports.

She claimed she met the boys at Lagos airport the previous day and, at the request of their father, agreed to take them to Ireland. She claimed the boys were with an agent who had arranged her travel.

The District Court on May 28th, 2008, ruled the section 12 charge arising from her Dublin airport arrest was void, but she was rearrested on Chancery Street, Dublin, on May 29th and again charged under section 12.

The facts of this case “illustrate all too clearly” the serious problems faced in trying to control and deal with undocumented persons here, Mr Justice Kearns said.

The judge rejected an additional argument by Ms Dokie that section 12 was unconstitutional on grounds it was a disproportionate measure. There was a “manifest need” for effective measures to regulate the entry into the State of undocumented non-Irish nationals, he said.

The action was against the DPP and a prosecuting garda, with Ireland and the Attorney General as notice parties. The Irish Human Rights Commission was an amicus curiae – assistant to the court on legal issues. The DPP had alleged there was no evidence to prove Ms Dokie was who she claimed to be. A birth certificate she provided had been analysed and proved not to be authentic, it was alleged.

Ms Dokie, on bail since July 2008, has applied for refugee status and lives with her daughter at a residence for asylum seekers in Monaghan. She claims her Nigerian husband died and one of her five children died as a result of circumcision.

[vc]

Как работающего китайца с ирландскии гражданством арестовали, так порядок. А как неработающую негру с "либерийским" гражданством, и привозящую в страну нелегалов, так нарушение конституции? Кто больше стране нужен?

[vdc]

В дурдоме начались какие то подвижки, европейскому суду сказали больше не вмешиваться в дела о депортации, в противном случае будет принят закон ограничивающий права суда
Stop meddling in asylum cases, unelected Euro judges warned by 47 countries

Human rights judges in Strasbourg were last night instructed by all of Europe to stop blocking the deportation of failed asylum seekers and terrorists.
Each of the 47 countries which oversee the unelected European Court of Human Rights issued a joint statement saying the judges’ meddling in national affairs must end.
Ministers hope it will pave the way for the UK to deport more foreign criminals, asylum rejects and preachers of hate.
The declaration by the Council of Europe is a humiliating rebuke for Strasbourg, which has effectively been slapped down by its own parent body.
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was instrumental in persuading other countries to join the attack on the European Court

It indicates that – in the wake of the prisoner voting row – the Government’s patience with Strasbourg has finally snapped.
Writing exclusively for the Mail, Mr Clarke says the court has been ‘defending the indefensible’. In future, he wants our own Supreme Court to have the final say over who is deported in asylum and immigration matters.
Mr Clarke writes: ‘When human rights are more often associated with defending the indefensible than protecting the vulnerable, we must act.’
The Council of Europe oversees the Strasbourg court and is charged with enforcing its judgments.
The ultimate sanction against any country that ignores the court is to be ejected from the Council.
Its declaration is not binding on the judges – who have repeatedly rode roughshod over the wishes of the British Parliament. But it sends the strongest possible message that the Court’s antics will no longer be tolerated.
In particular, the Court will be toothless if member states refuse to enforce its rulings.