My Lords, I understand that Amendment 5, to which I wish I speak, arises in particular out of concern that the House may unintentionally have been misled on Report. I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Amendment 5. I fully understand the argument deployed by the Government on Report—it would be absurd to allow a person regarded as dangerous back into the country in order to pursue an appeal. My concern is that legal practitioners understand the policy of the Home Office to be to wait until a person with leave to remain travels abroad before then making the decision to curtail their leave, with the express intention of depriving them of the right of appeal from within the United Kingdom. That seems to be difficult to reconcile with the rule of law. I ask the Minister in his response to Amendment 5 at least to give the House an assurance that decisions to curtail leave to remain will not be deliberately delayed until a person travels abroad, with the intention of depriving them of a right of appeal from within this country.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Pannick
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 18 December 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Crime and Courts Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
741 c1470 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-11-26 10:49:27 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-12-18/12121864000079
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-12-18/12121864000079
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-12-18/12121864000079