The Evil Loitering In Clause 23 Of The Nationality And Borders Bill

The Navigator Rquities V. Deripaska, [2020] EWHC 1798 (Comm)

Introduction

The Nationality and Borders Bill of 2021 has thriving to bring a new era of asylum and immigration law in the United Kingdom and as such the new era might only resemble a dictatorship era for the refugees from many third world countries. As it is to be conceived and concluded from the first draft of the Bill, asylum and immigration has been made stricter and more severe in terms of deportation. While the degree of authoritarian command is not deductible from the first clause of the Bill and it might seem quite considering and expanding in its wording, an in-depth reading of the same shall unveil the horror of the immigration bill that United Kingdom has trying to thrive upon the refugees of the country.

In this essay, we shall discuss clause 23 of the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2021 in details and hereafter we shall critically discuss and dissect the nature of the same with special reference to the condition of immigration and the refugees of the country.

The Nationality and Borders Bill, 2021 – Clause 23 and what does it entail?

In order to discuss the new implementation and the drafts of the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2021, it is to be recognised that the complexity in the wordings of the Bill that has been made for people who might not speak very good English, is astounding and to some extent quite unheard of (Pérez-Paredes, Jiménez & Hernández, 2017) . In the 2013’s case of Himanshu Pokhriyal V. The Secretary of State for The Home Department, [2013] WLR(D) 471, Lord Jackson has pointed how the diction of the Immigration rules and regulations and their thousands of appendices have reached such a degree of complexity that the “Byzantine Emperors would have envied”. Also, in a 2017, a senior immigration judge of the UK, Judge Nicholas Esterman also stated an unofficial comment that the diction of the immigration law is a complete nightmare and the judges are often at the same benchmark as the appellants, who does not hold the grasp of the imposed law of the land (Yeo, 2018).

Section 23 of Nationality and Borders Bill, 2021

The hierarchy of complexity in the diction of the Immigration law has not changed and the New Nationality and Borders Bill of 2021 has adapted the clutter of such rules and regulations under the uniform of new dictatorship. Even though the whole of the first draft of the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2021 provides such jargons, clause 23 of the Bill demands special attention as for the very nature of the clause under the Bill of 2021.

Clause 23 of the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2021 deals with the submission of evidence before the immigration tribunal by the appellant of the instant case and it concerns with cases where such submission of evidence before the tribunal has been late. (Nationality and Borders Bill, 2021). According to clause 23(1) of the Bill, late submission of evidence in case of immigration and asylum should be given a special weight of consideration which has again specified under clause 23(2) of the same bill that states that, “evidence raised by the claimant late is given minimal weight.…” (Nationality and Borders Bill, 2021). Also, according to subsection 4 of the clause 23, evidence shall be regarded to be submitted late if the same has been served upon the home department or the respondent on a delayed date.

The effect of clause 23

While the jargons of the clause 23 of the Nationality and Borders Bill, 2021 does not provide much of a clear effect as the enforceability of the clause 23 has been burdened on two words – minimal weight. In the context of the abovementioned depiction of clause 23(1) and 23(2), it can be framed that late submission of evidence by the appellant or the refugee shall only be given minimal weight or minimal regard in deciding the deportation or any other aspect of immigration. Hence, credible evidence, which could have otherwise affected the judgement of the immigration tribunal in its entirety, shall have only minimal weight once its submitted late and the minimal weight provision shall not be lifted by the tribunal unless a satisfactory explanation to such effect has been provided.

Critical Analysis of Clause 23 of the Nationality and Borders Bill, 2021

Unless and until the above-mentioned provision of clause 23 of the Nationality and Borders Bill, 2021 is given a clear and in-depth critical analysis with referential example, it might not provide the idea as to how and why clause 23 has been called the horror of the immigration law for the refugees (Yeo, 2021).

In critically dissecting the jargons of clause 23 of the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2021, it can be analysed that this bill has been passed for the immigrants, refugees of many third world countries who might not have an excellent grasp on the English language or the law and order of the land as a whole. Hence for subjects or appellants who are not competent to decipher the language of the instant Bill might not understand the context of the evidence submission and as such late submission of otherwise strong and credible evidence is often late in immigration tribunals can happen due to the appellant’s inability to appoint a lawyer on time or any other grounds which might not be a satisfactory ground before the court of law.

For example, a refugee of Iran pleads before the Tribunal against deportation that he will face death penalty if he’s been returned to his own country as he is charged with apostasy i.e. he has changed his religion. Considering the plea of such nature, it shall be a human rights violation under the Human Rights Act, 1988 of UK if he has been returned to his own country. However, the clause 23 of the Bill of 2021 provides a loophole where it states that if the evidence in support of such claim is submitted late to the tribunal or the serviced upon the Home Office late, it shall be given the minimal regard for passing the judgment of deportation.

Hence in critically assessing the nature of the Nationality and Borders Bill, 2021, it is to be critically concluded that a refugee shall have his/her life on thread if he/she submits the evidence in supporting of the plea late and the time period of such delay shall be solely determined by the Tribunal or the respondents at a stretch. Thus, United Kingdom has passed such clause in immigration law that not only takes the control of the immigration situation in their own hands but also completely discards the Human Rights as provided by the Human Rights Act, 1988 and the ECHR.

Conclusion

In concluding the abovementioned critique, it can be stated that the evil lurking of cluse 23 of Nationality and Borders Bill of 2021 is not only dehumanizing in nature but it also provides the State authority with an authoritative and doctorial jacket and discards the free will of the democracy and the podium of the Human Rights violation. Hence, clause 23 is a straight jacket that shall force the judiciary discard perfectly good evidence and give the secretary of the Home department protection of the absolute nature.