Tyrant

101 Falmouth Road, Hodge Hill, Birmingham B34 6EJ

Gus respectfully tells the UK immigration departments not to behave like Tyrants.

Mrs. Justice Hogg sitting alone in her Judgment (click here for full Judgment) has pleaded with the immigration authorities to allow a abused wife who was abandoned to Pakistan (in order to separate her from her new born son) to be permitted to enter the UK of Great Britian and Northern Ireland to take part in the family proceedings.

“I am totally astonished and in disbelief to this proposition. What is the matter with the immigration departments of the UK? “ Says Gus.

A 6 month old boy was separated from his Mother by the paternal family. The mother was left in Pakistan by the paternal family without her passport or ID documents. At the date of judgment the mother remains in Pakistan and was refused a duplicate spousal visa or special permission to enable her to return to the UK for the hearing which was conducted partially by video-link and partially by telephone.

The following passage is quoted directly from the Judgment

53. He left England with the mother at about 8.00 p.m. British time on 8th March. He returned with his father at about 9.30 a.m. British time on 11th March. The speed of events, his sudden decision to end the marriage and divorce the mother, is astonishing unless there had been a deliberate plan to leave her behind.

54. I find that, on the evidence, the marriage, from the father's perception, had failed and he wanted to separate from the mother, but, as a delighted and no doubt proud father, wanted to retain his son. He knew the mother was not entitled to live here as a separated woman. A plan was devised to take the mother to Pakistan, ensure she stayed there, whilst retaining the care of his son. He purchased the one-way ticket for her, but a return ticket for himself. Various attempts were made to inveigle the mother to travel with him willingly. She was reluctant to leave her baby. Her compliance was required and I find that, in some way, she was tranquilised sufficiently to ensure her docility.

55. I do not accept that there was a row, as the father describes, at the mother's home. I find he dumped her there with her suitcase, as she says, and he drove off into the dark, knowingly taking her passport and ID card with him. I do not accept the grandfather suggested returning to the mother's home, but being overridden by the father. This was a grandfather who had found his son's bride, who had negotiated the marriage, as is customary within their family's culture, and had expended much time, money and effort in arranging the marriage and obtaining her visa. He is not a man who, having made those efforts, would be easily overridden by his son, who had encountered unexpected difficulties and unexpectedly announced the end of the marriage. If he was unaware and taken by surprise, he would have insisted on returning to the mother's family to discuss the difficulties and seek to effect a satisfactory resolution. He is an intelligent man, not easily overborne, and he is head of his family.

56. I find the grandfather was fully aware that the marriage had failed and that he was deeply involved in a plan to take the mother back to Pakistan, leave her there stranded and separated from her baby.

57. The mother has made out her case against the father and her parents-in-law that she was deliberately separated from her tiny baby, and abandoned in Pakistan.

58. I also find that the grandmother was aware of, and involved in, a plan. After all, she was required to supervise the care of the baby and she clearly loves him.

59. Had the family been less deliberate in their actions, they might well have assisted in financing the mother's flight back to this country. However, the family's determination not to assist the mother's return, notwithstanding my comments about the child's emotional needs to have his mother, is a clear indicator that there was a deliberate intention to separate the mother from the child. It is, and was, a chillingly callous way of behaving towards a young and new mother and towards a very young newborn baby.

60. Sadly, this is not the first case where I have encountered allegations of deliberate separation of child and mother by the paternal family. I know that other judges of this division have encountered similar cases and made similar findings as I have done in this judgment. To separate a mother and child in this way is emotionally harmful to the child and remains so for so long as the child is deprived of the mother. It is something which is abhorrent and unfeeling towards a child and mother. It is selfish and cruel by those who do it.

61. On a different point, the mother is stranded in Pakistan. She was able to obtain a new Pakistani passport and, armed with it, she visited by appointment the British High Commission to Islamabad a few days before this hearing commenced, to obtain a duplicate copy of the spousal visa to enable her to fly to this country in time to give full instructions to her lawyer and for this hearing. Notwithstanding that the High Commission and Immigration authorities were aware of the mother's difficulties and of these proceedings, the date of the hearing and her urgent need to travel, she was not granted a duplicate visa or any document enabling her to enter this country. As a result, I heard her evidence by video link, which in itself was a difficult link to maintain, and, to save costs, she heard the other witnesses and submissions by telephone link.

62. I mention the difficulties which had been encountered and the necessity to use the video and telephone links to Pakistan simply because the additional costs of this hearing, which will be borne by the taxpayer, are significant. The mother's solicitors have calculated the increased costs incurred by the links as being not less than £2,600, which is likely to be borne by the Legal Services Commission. Part of the first day of this hearing was lost because the video link did not work. Whilst we did our best to use the time constructively, it was not possible to use the lost time entirely and, thus, extra costs were wasted. These costs include my wasted time as the judge and that of counsel and solicitors, court staff and possibly even the interpreter's time. I am not going to try to quantify those costs; I am not sure it would be productive to do so. I merely mention the wastage and its wastage from the public purse.

63. Had the mother been allowed to enter the county in time for this hearing, as I and her legal team had hoped, the hearing would have been easier for all concerned, probably shorter and certainly less expensive. The cost of her ticket would have been in the region of £300. Her brother had said he would fund it. It would have been cheaper for the Legal Services Commission to have funded it than to face the additional costs of video and telephone links. In my view, had it been the only way to fund her return, it would have been an appropriate and proper use of public funds.

64. As I have said, this is not the first case of its kind which the courts have encountered. I doubt it will be the last. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office was aware of this case and date of hearing, as was the UK Border Agency staff and the British High Commission in Islamabad. It is most unfortunate that, notwithstanding that knowledge, the mother was refused a duplicate of her spousal visa or at least special leave to enter for the purposes of these proceedings.

65. No doubt there will be a subsequent hearing when I or another judge will hear evidence and decide upon the welfare issues relating to the little boy, namely where and with whom he shall live. He is a British citizen and he is, and has been, a ward of this court since 31st March 2010 and he shall remain a ward for the foreseeable future. His plight deserves a proper consideration of all the evidence before a fully informed decision as to his future welfare can be made by this court. Such hearings are best conducted with parents being available in court to give clear instructions to their respective legal teams, and live evidence. Video links are valuable but are only second-best when hearing evidence. The mother, in my view, would be hampered if she were unable to attend the welfare hearing in person. Far be it for me to direct, or attempt to direct, the Secretary of State or Minister of State carrying the portfolio for the UK Border Agency as to how to manage their affairs or policies. I do not intend to do that.

66. I do not know what the mother's long-term plans might be: whether she wishes to stay in this country to care for her son or to take him back to Pakistan permanently. She may make an application to become a permanent resident; she may not. I do not know. However, I anticipate that there will be investigations into the parents' circumstances and proposals for the long-term care of the little boy and future hearings in these proceedings. I can only make an urgent plea to the immigration authorities that this mother be allowed to enter this country for the purposes, and for the duration, of these proceedings.

67. I make a further plea to the ministers concerned that there should be some consideration as to what arrangements can be put in place to assist mothers to return to this country where allegations similar to those made in this case and where proceedings are in being and hearings are listed.

68. I give leave to the mother's solicitors to send a copy of this judgment to the Secretary of State and Minister of State responsible for the UK Border Agency, with a request that they consider my concerns and comments I have made.

Quote End