thsths wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 9:28 am
ouflak1 wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 12:35 pm
It's also important to keep in mind the UK government can decide to bestow citizenship however they wish, by whatever means they wish. They can also deny it for whatever reason they like (however menial or arcane) or no reason at all. Indeed that is a right of any sovereign nation.
No, I disagree on this one. Pretty much any western democracy recognises both the private and the public value of citizenship. It is an important aspect of integration. You can make it easy, you can make it hard, that is a policy choice, but it needs to be fair.
But if the government (not parliament!) has the right to refuse civil liberties without reason and without legal recourse, then we are approaching the territory of a totalitarian state. Disproportional (sometimes discriminatory, sometimes indiscriminate) punishment is a typical sign of a totalitarian system. The OP said so, and I do agree.
As for the appeal, it would be worthwhile considering it. It is expensive, lengthy, and uncertain in outcome, but still cheaper than another application. Under the current rules, another application would be successful in 10 years, I believe, but there is no guarantees that these rules will still be the same in 10 years.
I agree. If this non custodial conviction is spent and OP does not have further issues with good character, I do not think the decision is proportionate. See HO guide
3.8 Considering Cumulative, Non-Custodial Sentences
Decision makers may still refuse an application where a person’s record shows a
‘non-custodial offence or other out of court disposal’ older than 3 years, if the
circumstances of the conviction or disposal call the person’s character into question.
The factors the decision maker should consider include, but are not restricted to:
(a) The number of non-custodial sentences or other out of court disposals on
the applicant’s record. There is no set number of non-custodial sentences or disposals
that would lead to an application being refused. However, the higher the number the more
likely it is the application will be refused.
(b) The period over which offences were committed or other disposals occurred.
Decision makers should consider whether the offences or other disposals indicate a
pattern of behaviour that could justify a refusal. For example, a series of minor offences or
disposals may indicate sustained anti- social behaviour or disregard for the law which will
be relevant to the assessment of the person’s character.
(c) The nature of the offences or the behaviour that led to other disposals.
Decision makers should look at the nature of the offences involved, or the behaviour that
led to an out of court disposal. For example behaviour involving anti-social behaviour, drug
use, or violence may well indicate that a person’s character is such that their application
should be refused (particularly if there is a pattern of such behaviour). In contrast isolated
minor incidents such as traffic violations will not normally in themselves indicate that a
person is of bad character. However, each application must be considered individually.
(d) Any other historical or recent convictions. Decision-makers should bear in mind
that their task is to make an overall assessment of a person’s character, so older non-
custodial sentences or out of court disposals may be relevant if
there are other more serious convictions. Decision makers should look to see if the older
non-custodial sentences or out of court disposals are relevant to their assessment of a
person’s character when looked at alongside other more serious or recent convictions or
out of court of disposals.
(e) Other factors. Decision makers should take into account any other factors that are
relevant to a person’s character, such as the particular circumstances in someone’s life
when they received the non-custodial sentence or the other out of court disposal occurred
or positive evidence of their good character despite their record.
(f) Age. Decision makers should take into account a person’s age at the time older
non-custodial sentences were imposed or other out of court disposals took place. Isolated
youthful indiscretions will not generally indicate a person is of bad character if that
individual has clearly been of good character since that time.
At all times decision makers should remember that each case will depend on its individual
circumstances and must be determined on its own merits.
Source:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 9SDlqv-E5H
See this judgement for speeding conviction that was not spent
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/254.html
