Context
The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute illegal migrants on the grounds that they have no choice in how they travel, and that administrative removal channels are relied upon by corrupt human rights lawyers.
Question
Following the ridiculous decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute illegal migrants on the grounds that they have “no choice in how they travel”, where does this leave the Nationality and Borders Bill? Does this decision make it even more urgent that we bring in safe havens for these people in a third country?
Answer from Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is quite right to point out that countries such as France and Germany are obviously safe and that someone genuinely in need of protection or asylum can claim asylum quite properly and easily in such countries rather than attempting dangerous and unnecessary crossings over the English channel. Notwithstanding the CPS's recent announcement, we can, do and will prosecute people who organise and pilot dangerous boat crossings across the English channel for gain or with the intention of avoiding immigration controls.
Not addressed: Urgency to establish safe havens in third countries
Was this summary accurate? Tell us
How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)