Blimey we shoot a known gangster its hand wring time yet the Kenyans use rockets

[sasguru]

Ok fair dos.
Although having read that, it doesn't support your claim that the victims are considered less than the criminals.
It's a more complex case than that. These guys were fleeing a murderous regime, they apologised for the fear they caused and their intention (which I maintain is important) was not to cause harm.

[Mich the Tester]

Ok look at this case ,explain why you think this balances the rights of the victims with the criminals ?

In the written ruling, Lord Justice Brooke said: "We commend the judge [Mr Justice Sullivan] for an impeccable judgment.
"The history of this case through the criminal courts ... has attracted a degree of opprobrium. Judges and adjudicators have to apply the law as they find it, and not as they might wish it to be."
"So far as the powers of the home secretary are concerned, the challenges created by the respondents' presence in this country have been apparent ever since they landed here over six years ago.
"There has been ample time for the home secretary to obtain appropriate Parliamentary authority, if he wished to be clothed with the powers he gave to himself without parliamentary sanction in the August 2005 asylum policy instructions."

In other words, the home secretary tried to use powers that he didn't have while he could have gained those powers by going through parliament and getting them on the statute book. The judgment balances the rights of everybody in that it clearly shows that a minister must not rule by decree, but by law.

So the (perhaps unfortunate) result of the case is either a consequence of the Home Secretary's incompetence or his disregard for parliament, or both, and not a consequence of the human rights act itself.

[sasguru]

In other words, the home secretary tried to use powers that he didn't have while he could have gained those powers by going through parliament and getting them on the statute book. The judgment balances the rights of everybody in that it clearly shows that a minister must not rule by decree, but by law.

So the (perhaps unfortunate) result of the case is either a consequence of the Home Secretary's incompetence or his disregard for parliament, or both, and not a consequence of the human rights act itself.

True. And I'd rather have an independent judiciary (even if that caused some criminals to go free) than have (like the vast majority of the world) a judiciary controlled by government for its own purposes.