Kareesha Turner - Immigration Barrister

Kareesha Turner - Immigration Barrister Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Kareesha Turner - Immigration Barrister, Immigration Lawyer, London.

08/03/2024

Happy Women’s Day. We mark International Women’s Day at a time of unparalleled crisis.
I think of the thousands of women today being deliberately targeted in warzones, by r**e or sexual violence.
I think of the millions of women who are left responsible for keeping their families alive, or for taking decisions on whether to stay or to flee in a war torn country.
The pregnant women who have no choice but to deliver their babies in a bombed-out shelter, without medical assistance.
It is the day to awaken public awareness about issues that women face globally.
Still today, not one country in this world has achieved gender equality.
It is the day to remind everyone to break barriers and accelerate equal opportunities for all women around the world. Twenty years from now, what will women's rights look like?

31/01/2024
https://youtu.be/WHUzZtV402M?si=4xuMFG2sc1b0mbn1What the media isn’t telling you
23/01/2024

https://youtu.be/WHUzZtV402M?si=4xuMFG2sc1b0mbn1
What the media isn’t telling you

KT Legal - Kareesha TurnerImmigration & Human Rights Barrister at Imperium ChambersBook a direct consultation with me viaPhone Number: +44 7490386948 (UK wor...

22/01/2024

Part 2 - Rethinking the famous Rule 39.

Many people would say ignoring a court order is something that, unless the circumstances were quite extraordinary, is a step a government should never take because it is symbolic of a breach of the rule of law.
The authority of the judges of the Strasbourg Court is limited by the Convention, which does not authorise the Court, let alone an anonymous “duty judge”, to grant binding interim relief.
The current understanding of Rule 39 dates from at earliest 2005, when a majority of the Court concluded that Turkey had breached Article 34 by failing to comply with an interim measure. The controversy about the Government’s Rwanda plan and now about the Illegal Migration Bill may have encouraged commentators to overlook, or disregard, these fundamental problems with the current interpretation and practice of Rule 39 by the Strasbourg Court.

22/01/2024

Part 1 - Part 1 - Rethinking the famous rule 39
Rule 39 has risen to prominence in the UK since 14 June 2022, when a judge of the Strasbourg Court indicated “interim measures” restraining the UK from removing asylum-seekers to Rwanda.
The main criticism was, he or she did not hear argument from the UK before making the Rule 39 order.
Many lawyers take it to be obvious that the UK would breach its international legal obligations if it failed to comply with a Rule 39 order. They argue that if the UK were to fail to comply with a Rule 39 ruling, this would undermine the rule of law, in much the same way that it would be outrageous for a minister to fail to comply with an interim ruling of a domestic court. This analysis is mistaken.
The Strasbourg Court’s assertion that it has power to bind member states by making interim measure under Rule 39 is impossible to accept when one examines the express terms of the Convention.
The absence from the ECHR of a power to make (binding) interim measures is no accident. In 1949, representatives of the Council of Europe’s member states met to draft the European Convention on Human Rights and this was a deliberate decision.
The ECHR now clearly asserts that Rule 39 rulings impose (new) legal obligations on states. This, however came after the case of Mamatkulov and Paladi. The express obligation to abide by final judgments Article 46 of the Convention obliges member states to abide by the final judgment in any case to which they are a party.
The logical consequence of this provision is that member states have no obligation, under the terms of the Convention, to abide by a judgment of the Court that is not final, still less with any other act (or purported act) of the Court that falls short of constituting a “final judgment” as that term is defined in Article 44.
Closer to home, The Illegal Migration Bill imposes a duty on the Home Secretary to remove from the UK a person who enters the UK unlawfully from a safe country. The risk of such a policy being interrupted by Rule 39 interim measures was readily apparent in the aftermath of the Strasbourg Court’s intervention last June. For this reason, various academics proposed that legislation giving effect to this policy would need to mandate removal, rather than merely to empower the Home Secretary to carry out removal, for such a discretion would be difficult to exercise in the face of a Rule 39 ruling, not least because commentators, civil servants and government lawyers would be likely to argue that non-compliance would be unlawful.
The UK has an obligation to abide by final judgments of the Court, but this should be sharply distinguished from an obligation to comply with interim measures, which are made by a single judge in purported exercise of a power that cannot be reconciled with the terms of the Convention and which the member states repeatedly chose not to authorise.

Address

London

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+447490386948

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Kareesha Turner - Immigration Barrister posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Kareesha Turner - Immigration Barrister:

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category