Post
by akpanokon » Fri May 02, 2014 9:15 am
I think there are several aspects of the case that you are missing.... most importantly the fact that the case states that the Home Office should have considered references from his "Employer"..... at no point does the 17 page judgement make any reference to the fact that judgement was given due to his prior service with the British Army
Clearly, according to the judge “This was not an adequate assessment of the claimant's character, as required by law. No references were sought from his employer, or his personal referees, and there was no interview with the claimant."
She said that "There has to be a comprehensive assessment of each applicant's character, as an individual, which involves an exercise of judgment, not just ticking boxes on a form,"
Furthermore, she also addedd that "Plainly, criminal convictions are relevant to the assessment of character, but they are likely to vary greatly in significance, depending upon the nature of the offence and the length of time which has elapsed since its commission, as well as any pattern of repeat offending."
Finally she added that: "The defendant is entitled to adopt a policy on the way in which criminal convictions will normally be considered by her caseworkers, but it should not be applied mechanistically and inflexibly.
Several elements of this judgement contradict the Good Character Requirements as it stands, unless Good Character Requirements will be defined differently for every member of society then the current rules will have to be meticulously modified to ensure that it is not "applied mechanistically and inflexibly"
My thoughts
blue