header-logo header-logo

28 May 2009 / Joe Middleton
Issue: 7371 / Categories: Features , Public , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail

The exclusion net

Joe Middleton on recent exclusions under the Refugee Convention

* * * * * *

The Refugee Convention (the Covention) recognises that those who are guilty of very serious misconduct should not be entitled to surrogate protection, even if they have a genuine fear of persecution in their home countries.

Article 1(F) provides that the Convention does not apply if there are serious reasons for considering that a person has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity (1F(a)), a serious nonpolitical crime (1F(b)) or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (1F((c)). Moreover, Art 33 provides that the prohibition of refoulement, which is at the heart of states' obligations under the Convention, does not apply if the person in question constitutes a danger to the community of the host country having been convicted of a particularly serious crime.

Exclusion from the scope of the Convention does not, of course, imply that the UK will remove a person to a place where they

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll