Shameful - please give your support
I think the interpretation is that you cannot apply to remain until you have left the Services - which is incorrect. At the 4 year point (used to be 5) you can apply for indefinite leave to remain and commence the naturalisation process if you wish - irrespective of your job! No one from UKBA is going to say 'Soz, can't grant you citizenship cos' you is still in the Army'.
However, once you have left the services there is a time limitation on applying - again, common across all propsective applicants.
However, once you have left the services there is a time limitation on applying - again, common across all propsective applicants.
This quote:-
Is lifted from here:-
UK Border Agency | How to apply for settlement from inside the UK
Perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places but so far I can see no reference to a method this guy could have used to apply any earlier.
Members and former members of HM Forces can apply for settlement using form SET(O) if they have served in HM Forces for a minimum of 4 years and have been, or are in the process of being, discharged from service. (There are different requirements for former Gurkhas, who can apply for settlement from outside the UK if they have served for 4 years in the British Army.)
UK Border Agency | How to apply for settlement from inside the UK
Perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places but so far I can see no reference to a method this guy could have used to apply any earlier.
... hopefully it's moving in the right direction.
The real issue though hasn't started moving, well visibly anyway. The UKBA needs to drop summary convictions from its automatic disqualification for naturalisation list. It also needs to include service in HM Forces as an automatic credit in its reasons to award naturalisation list. It also needs to recruit ex-Servicemen and women in much greater numbers if it possibly can, in an effort to turn round its abysmal performance to date.
I think the interpretation is that you cannot apply to remain until you have left the Services - which is incorrect. At the 4 year point (used to be 5) you can apply for indefinite leave to remain and commence the naturalisation process if you wish - irrespective of your job! No one from UKBA is going to say 'Soz, can't grant you citizenship cos' you is still in the Army'...
While serving and for 28 days following discharge, Commonwealth personnel are officially "exempt from immigration control".
From the MoD website:
...To assist HM Forces personnel in making the transition to civilian life, settlement applications may be lodged up to 10 weeks before discharge date, although settlement cannot be granted until after exemption from control has ceased upon discharge. ...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avionker
Not all Service Discipline offences are recorded on the Police National Computer. Details of what offences under the Armed Forces Act 2006 are or are not Recordable Offences on the Police National Computer are detailed in Statutory Instrument 2009 No 1922 'The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Armed Forces) Order 2009'. This, as is usual, is rather complex; luckily a summary of what is included is in Hansard as a response to a question:
The point, as far as I can tell is this, he has been refused leave to remain in the country by the UKBA because he was charged and fined for a disciplinary offence last year. After the 2010 amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders act (1974) all convictions, whether spent or not, can be taken into account by the UKBA. Prior to this amendment there were no exceptions, once a conviction was spent, it was spent. So if his offence took place last year or 12 years ago it would still be considered as a criminal conviction by the UKBA.
The real injustice as far as I am concerned is that all punishments awarded under military discipline which lead to a fine or detention are regarded as convictions. A civilian has to be taken to court, tried and found guilty to receive a conviction. During this process they are entitled to professional legal representation.
A member of HM Forces can be charged, the offence heard by and disposed of by their Commanding officer, with no right to legal representation. This means any serviceman or woman who leaves the Forces and has been charged and fined in the 12 months prior to leaving must declare the conviction when applying for a job. How many people know that? And in fact prior to 1st May this year, the rehabilitation period for a conviction leading to a fine was actually 5 years.
I am willing to accept that offences dealt with by a Court Martial should be regarded with the same weight as a Civilian court conviction but a simple charge? Heard by any old commissioned officer without specialist legal training or experience? That is ludicrous.
http://www.ilpa.org.uk/data/resource...s-Act-1974.pdf
The real injustice as far as I am concerned is that all punishments awarded under military discipline which lead to a fine or detention are regarded as convictions. A civilian has to be taken to court, tried and found guilty to receive a conviction. During this process they are entitled to professional legal representation.
A member of HM Forces can be charged, the offence heard by and disposed of by their Commanding officer, with no right to legal representation. This means any serviceman or woman who leaves the Forces and has been charged and fined in the 12 months prior to leaving must declare the conviction when applying for a job. How many people know that? And in fact prior to 1st May this year, the rehabilitation period for a conviction leading to a fine was actually 5 years.
I am willing to accept that offences dealt with by a Court Martial should be regarded with the same weight as a Civilian court conviction but a simple charge? Heard by any old commissioned officer without specialist legal training or experience? That is ludicrous.
http://www.ilpa.org.uk/data/resource...s-Act-1974.pdf
Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether criminal convictions of members of the armed forces are recorded on the Police National Computer. [41019]
Mr Robathan [holding answer 16 February 2011]: Yes. Recordable offences on the Police National Computer are those offences under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for which the corresponding offences under the law of England and Wales are also offences that are recordable under regulation 3 of the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000.
In addition, there are a number of service offences that are recordable. These are offences under the following sections of the Armed Forces Act 2006:
a. Section 11(1)—Misconduct towards a superior officer;
b. Section 14—Using force against a sentry, etc.;
c. Section 24(1)—Damage to or loss of public or service property;
d. Section 27—Obstructing or failing to assist a service policeman;
e. Section 28—Resistance to arrest, etc. (only in relation to a conviction under section 28(1)(b) or (c)—using violence or threatening behaviour);
f. Section 29—Offences in relation to service custody;
7 Mar 2011 : Column 805W
g. Section 30—Allowing escape, or unlawful release of prisoners, etc. (but only where the conviction is under section 30(4)(a));
h. Section 39—Attempts to commit any offences specified above; and
i. Section 40—Encouraging or assisting the commission of any offence above (apart from an attempt).
Mr Robathan [holding answer 16 February 2011]: Yes. Recordable offences on the Police National Computer are those offences under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for which the corresponding offences under the law of England and Wales are also offences that are recordable under regulation 3 of the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000.
In addition, there are a number of service offences that are recordable. These are offences under the following sections of the Armed Forces Act 2006:
a. Section 11(1)—Misconduct towards a superior officer;
b. Section 14—Using force against a sentry, etc.;
c. Section 24(1)—Damage to or loss of public or service property;
d. Section 27—Obstructing or failing to assist a service policeman;
e. Section 28—Resistance to arrest, etc. (only in relation to a conviction under section 28(1)(b) or (c)—using violence or threatening behaviour);
f. Section 29—Offences in relation to service custody;
7 Mar 2011 : Column 805W
g. Section 30—Allowing escape, or unlawful release of prisoners, etc. (but only where the conviction is under section 30(4)(a));
h. Section 39—Attempts to commit any offences specified above; and
i. Section 40—Encouraging or assisting the commission of any offence above (apart from an attempt).
Last edited by Climebear; 30th Jul 2012 at 15:23.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Whenurhappy - post #102
You can't say that there was nothing unlawful about his so called conviction because, unless I'm very much mistaken, you know nothing about the summary hearing which resulted in his "conviction".
I hasten to add that I know nothing about it myself.
However, if for instance, he wasn't told exactly what the charge against him was, in advance of the hearing and if important witnesses weren't called or if any other aspect of the proceedings were flawed, then it was indeed unlawful.
I don't know what happened so this is just a debating point.
The important thing is that he has now been granted leave to appeal and let's hope he does so.
Never mind the nit-picking, let's just try and help him. He is, after all one of us.
Rgds SOS
P.S. What a shame Gilbert Blades has retired, he would probably have fixed this one before breakfast! Whoops, I've just googled him and it seems he hasn't retired - cor blimey!
I hasten to add that I know nothing about it myself.
However, if for instance, he wasn't told exactly what the charge against him was, in advance of the hearing and if important witnesses weren't called or if any other aspect of the proceedings were flawed, then it was indeed unlawful.
I don't know what happened so this is just a debating point.
The important thing is that he has now been granted leave to appeal and let's hope he does so.
Never mind the nit-picking, let's just try and help him. He is, after all one of us.
Rgds SOS
P.S. What a shame Gilbert Blades has retired, he would probably have fixed this one before breakfast! Whoops, I've just googled him and it seems he hasn't retired - cor blimey!
Last edited by SOSL; 30th Jul 2012 at 23:50.
Summary hearings are lawful (set against a trend in the medja - and here - that they are hastily-concocted Kangaroo courts) as are the findings and the punishments prescribed; perhaps the review that has been called has identified a breach of RP in this case or restrospective grounds to appeal (although this would set a precedent).
I have taken the time to speak to a colleague who deals with Consular matters who has confirmed that there is no restriction on SP applying for citizenship (ie to be 'naturalised') at the 5 year point. Whilst serving there is no demonstrable need to apply for 'leave to remain'. This is clearly where there is confusion amongst F&C SP - between what is meant by 'leave to remain' and 'naturalisation' - when either can be applied for. I can only assume that his CoC failed to advise him of his options (they are not 'rights' per se).
I wish L/Cpl Bale sucess but I still can't work out on the 'facts' that are presented in the petition (and elsewhere) why he isn't granted 'leave to remain' as he is (lawfully) married to a UK citizen and has children who are similarly UK citizens - and this is nothing to do with the recognition of Summary offences being held against him.
Perhaps I'm too cynically after 27 years...but those who have had the privilege to lead personnel (especially from the Army) will have heard just about every toe-curling personal drama and convoluted story that could be imagined. And some of them even stand scrutiny...
I have taken the time to speak to a colleague who deals with Consular matters who has confirmed that there is no restriction on SP applying for citizenship (ie to be 'naturalised') at the 5 year point. Whilst serving there is no demonstrable need to apply for 'leave to remain'. This is clearly where there is confusion amongst F&C SP - between what is meant by 'leave to remain' and 'naturalisation' - when either can be applied for. I can only assume that his CoC failed to advise him of his options (they are not 'rights' per se).
I wish L/Cpl Bale sucess but I still can't work out on the 'facts' that are presented in the petition (and elsewhere) why he isn't granted 'leave to remain' as he is (lawfully) married to a UK citizen and has children who are similarly UK citizens - and this is nothing to do with the recognition of Summary offences being held against him.
Perhaps I'm too cynically after 27 years...but those who have had the privilege to lead personnel (especially from the Army) will have heard just about every toe-curling personal drama and convoluted story that could be imagined. And some of them even stand scrutiny...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Whenurhappy
Wuh, I'm beginning to realise, that you and I are in violent agreement!
Agreed that summary hearing are in fact legal and lawful, unless RP are breached.
Agreed there is no restriction on SP applying for citizenship etc
Agreed that the "facts" as presented don't properly add up. We obvoiusly don't have all the facts.
Agreed about the toe-curling.
Rgds SOS
Agreed that summary hearing are in fact legal and lawful, unless RP are breached.
Agreed there is no restriction on SP applying for citizenship etc
Agreed that the "facts" as presented don't properly add up. We obvoiusly don't have all the facts.
Agreed about the toe-curling.
Rgds SOS
Phew! I also agree that we don't seem to have all the facts. It's interesting to note that this particular case has been the cause celebre for a hitherto unknown Service charity, a cause which has the charity now positively dripping in lime-light!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Summary hearings are lawful (set against a trend in the medja - and here - that they are hastily-concocted Kangaroo courts)
They may not be hastily concocted.
But 'Kangaroo Court' is a pretty good analogy based on my memories. As I said in an earlier post, 'march in the guilty bastard' pretty much sums up many peoples experiences of service justice.
S-D
I am not a a lawyer, but from what one reads of this case and others, he is married to a UK citizenm his children are UK citiozens (all "British by birth"), and under the Human Rights Act he has a right to enjoy family life. Surely Mrs B-li@r would take his case up "pro bono"
AFA 2006 was the result of ECHR legislation and although miscarriages of justice might occur, the 'system' is considerably more robust than it was and there are considerably more checks and balances in place compared with the Single-service Acts and RP.
It is interesting that this case hasn't been taken pro bono afaik.
It is interesting that this case hasn't been taken pro bono afaik.
AFA 2006 was the result of ECHR legislation and although miscarriages of justice might occur, the 'system' is considerably more robust than it was and there are considerably more checks and balances in place compared with the Single-service Acts and RP.
It is interesting that this case hasn't been taken pro bono afaik.
Surely Mrs B-li@r would take his case up "pro bono"
I really only have one question I would like to know the definitive answer to.
Is it possible for service personnel to be charged with, and found guilty of, an offence which results in them having a recordable conviction without the case going to the Court Martial system?
Is it possible for service personnel to be charged with, and found guilty of, an offence which results in them having a recordable conviction without the case going to the Court Martial system?
Outrageous! Now 23,873 signatures
Links to both petitions here:
Sign the petition on behalf of L/Cpl Bale Balewai
I've checked both the Veterans Aid and BAFF Websites (it is the former who launched the petition) and there is no mention of legal moves, pro bono or otherwise. Indeed, BAFF advise that VA decline further assistance (but then BAFF has no status, charitable or otherwise).
Again, I would have thought that it would be in the interest of a law firm to hitch on to this one and make a name for themselves in an otherwise high profile case...
Again, I would have thought that it would be in the interest of a law firm to hitch on to this one and make a name for themselves in an otherwise high profile case...
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 31st Jul 2012 at 12:57.
I've checked both the Veterans Aid and BAFF Websites (it is the former who launched the petition) and there is no mention of legal moves, pro bono or otherwise. Indeed, BAFF advise that VA decline further assistance (but then BAFF has no status, charitable or otherwise).
Again, I would have thought that it would be in the interest of a law firm to hitch on to this one and make a name for themselves in an otherwise high profile case...
but it's on the public record if you look for it (a) that Mr Baleiwai is legally represented as far as the service disciplinary proceedings are concerned and (b) that at least one legal firm well known for human rights work issued an offer of assistance some days ago - I can think of others who might be equally willing to help. This is a matter for Mr Baleiwai and those advising him.
Is it possible for service personnel to be charged with, and found guilty of, an offence which results in them having a recordable conviction without the case going to the Court Martial system?
Please sign the petitions!
Last edited by baffman; 31st Jul 2012 at 13:39.