Irish Mirror Exclusive - Izevbekhai FGM story a lie

[Catalpa]

Well IMO they shouldn't have taken the case on if they knew she was spoofing.

[corelli]

Well IMO they shouldn't have taken the case on if they knew she was spoofing.

It's called the cab rank rule. You are obliged to take everyone that comes to you. They may have had doubts but if their clients instructions were clear they take and follow them. It is not, as JMCC points out, the duty of your lawyers to try you!

Generally it's a good idea to preface everything you say with, "my clients instructions are...................."!

[benjamin]

Yeah OK point taken

...It's just that I don't know a single person who would have thought this woman was doing anything other than what is now proven to be the case.

Yet these highly paid and experienced people apparently took her Story at face value.

Most Odd.

Beyond the points made by others re the role of a legal team in general surely taking this case, or indeed any case, at face value would only be odd if the merits of the case were in some way incredible?

Sadly there is nothing incredible about a story involving the death of an infant girl following FGM or about the pressure on parents to submit their girl children to the practice.

You should also note that by all accounts the state didn't actually dispute the facts of the case at the initial or appeals stage of the process. The state accepted the facts of the case as presented by PI up until February when it actually took a proper look at the case. The real question seems to me to be why the hell it took them so long to do so? Surely if they had done so four years ago this entire case might have been resolved by now without all the cost and turmoil? Not least to two small girls who have become very much part of their local community in sligo by now.

We need a fair, transparent and robust asylum process, one which ensures that we grant asylum when it is warranted and which rejects it where it isn't, once the case has properly considered of course. This clearly didn't happen in this case and we can try and blame the applicant all we want, but surely the real problem is the way the state has dealt with this case?

[pete2]

It's called the cab rank rule. You are obliged to take everyone that comes to you. They may have had doubts but if their clients instructions were clear they take and follow them. It is not, as JMCC points out, the duty of your lawyers to try you!

Generally it's a good idea to preface everything you say with, "my clients instructions are...................."!

Plausibile deniability (allegedly)

[imokyrok]

Beyond the points made by otehrs re the role of a legal team in general surly taking this case, or any case, at face value would only be odd if the merits of the case were in some way incredible?

Sadly there is nothing incredible about a story involving the death of an infant girl following FGM or about the pressure on parents to submit their girl children to the practice.

You should also note that by all accounts the state didn't actually dispute the facts of the case at the initial or appeals stage of the process. The state accepted the facts of the case as presented by PI up until February when it actually took a proper look at the case. The real question seems to me to be why the hell it took them so long to do so? Surely if they had done so four years ago this entire case might have been resolved by now without all the cost and turmoil? Not least to two small girls who have become very much part of their local community in sligo by now.

We need a fair, transparent and robust asylum process, one which ensures that we grant asylum when it is warranted and which rejects it where it isn't, once the case has properly considered of course. This clearly didn't happen in this case and we can try and blame the applicant all we want, but surely the real problem is the way the state has dealt with this case?

That is a very well considered post. Such a rarity on this thread. Thank you.

[HollyB]

It's called the cab rank rule. You are obliged to take everyone that comes to you. They may have had doubts but if their clients instructions were clear they take and follow them. It is not, as JMCC points out, the duty of your lawyers to try you!

Even for pro bono cases, like this one? If that's the case, it sucks for solicitors and barristers; they have to take every case that comes their way, even when the prospective client can't pay them and they'll basically be working for free.

[corelli]

Even for pro bono cases, like this one? If that's the case, it sucks for solicitors and barristers; they have to take every case that comes their way, even when the prospective client can't pay them and they'll basically be working for free.

Does not apply to Solicitors and you are not obliged to work for free.

[benjamin]

That is a very well considered post. Such a rarity on this thread. Thank you.

Thanks. I have noticed that threads on asylum/refugees or gays seem to set people off alright. Just wait until we see a case of an asylum application from a gay man from say Iran. They'll all lose it entirely!

I really does strike me as very odd that so many people are out to have a serious go at PI but not to ask questions of the state re this case. The facts as presented in the case are hardly incredible sadly, the problem appears to be that the state never appears to have given them more than a cursory scan, before accepting them as fact for four years, saying the kids could be safe in Nigeria anyway despite the prevalence of FGM there and the approach of the nigerian state to the issue. Then when forced to act in the face of massive public pressure to grant asylum they actually take a look, and luckily for them discover massive issues with the case. But not before four years of legal battles, massive costs and real trauma for the kids involved. Disgraceful.

Assess cases properly, grant asylum where appropriate and reject claims where it is not, and within a reasonable timeframe.

[corelli]

Thanks. I have noticed that threads on asylum/refugees or gays seem to set people off alright. Just wait until we see a case of an asylum application from a gay man from say Iran. They'll all lose it entirely!

I really does strike me as very odd that so many people are out to have a serious go at PI but not to ask questions of the state re this case. The facts as presented in the case are hardly incredible sadly, the problem appears to be that the state never appears to have given them more than a cursory scan, before accepting them as fact for four years, saying the kids could be safe in Nigeria anyway despite the prevalence of FGM there and the approach of the nigerian state to the issue. Then when forced to act in the face of massive public pressure to grant asylum they actually take a look, and luckily for them discover massive issues with the case. But not before four years of legal battles, massive costs and real trauma for the kids involved. Disgraceful.

Assess cases properly, grant asylum where appropriate and reject claims where it is not, and within a reasonable timeframe.

I had a client who was gay and from Iran several years ago. He got asylum without much difficulty.

[benjamin]

I had a client who was gay and from Iran several years ago. He got asylum without much difficulty.

Sssh! Don't say that out too loud or we'll have someone pointing out that homosexuality doesn't actually exist in Iran as per the Iranian presidents comments a year or so ago, and if it doesn't exist there then this Iranian man can hardly be gay at all in the firstly place can he? After all a country like Iran or even Nigeria would never lie about the human rights situation there, would they?

On a serious note, wasn't a gay Iranian deported from Europe last year? From the UK and then the Netherlands I think? Sorry for going off-topic...