Izevbekhai and pleading the belly in Irish Law

The Corinthian

There are already a number of threads on this subject - most recently on After Hours, however I thought it would be interesting to approach this discussion from a different perspective (two to be exact) than the usual deport / don't deport one, instead looking from the perspective of how we deal with fraudulent asylum cases and how mothers are treated in general in law.

It seems increasingly likely that, with the most recent allegations that even her new documentary is fraudulent and her support base has all but evaporated, that Izevbekhai has used the legal system ruthlessly to remain in Ireland.

Ignoring any costs that the state (or her local community and supporters) may have incurred in financially supporting her and her children (as I am not aware of any figures there), the legal cost has been enormous. More importantly, while it is evident that this case highlights serious deficiencies in the asylum system, her high-profile case may well result in a backlash that would mean genuine cases may lose out in any subsequent 'reform', not to mention what any changes to appeal law may mean to the legal system in general.

Yet, if she is indeed guilty of such alleged gross fraud and perversion of justice, the most that she is likely to suffer is deportation, and only after having successfully remained in Ireland for many years - hardly a deterrent against future abuses. Surely, a criminal case is warranted, particularly to demonstrate that deportation is not the only consequence of such actions. Unfortunately, if legally possible, the only problem I see with such a case is that were she to be held accountable for such alleged fraud, she would effectively plead the belly to escape justice.

Regrettably, in Ireland, this is something that apparently seems to make mothers immune from custodial sentience for anything less than murder. Up until recently mothers could routinely ignore court orders on access, while fathers would face custodial sentences for non payment of maintenance. There has, AFAIK, only one case of paternity fraud, Worldwide, that has resulted in a custodial sentence, despite the psychological and financial cost to the victim. And in kind, even if it is demonstrated that Izevbekhai has committed fraud, she would almost certainly use her children as an argument against a custodial sentience - after all, her case for asylum is ultimately one of pleading the belly in itself.

Is it perhaps not time that we review our treatment of fraudulent asylum cases in general and the manner in which cases involving mothers are dealt with leniently in Ireland?

walshb

I tell you, love her or loathe her, this woman is showing this country up for the sham that it is as regards the legal system. I am actually warming to her now for her persistence and ability to ride out any storm. Now, I know she isn't doing this alone, but hell, the legal system is really deplorable and it has taken this woman to exploit it

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

walshb

And then when she gets to the Supreme Court, listen to the Supreme Court judge wonder if the court is the proper court to hear her case? You couldn't make it up, these high powered judges don't even know the law themselves....Adjournment, appeal, adjournment, appeal and on and on and on!

AlekSmart

I know she isn't doing this alone, but hell, the legal system is really deplorable and it has taken this woman to exploit it

Bwalsh,you better believe she is`nt doing this alone,neither is she the last to attempt this integration of foreign criminality into our more than sufficient indigenous one.

With the recent news that pretending to be Somalian is now the growth sector of the "Asylum Trade" we can be fairly confident that Pamela Izevbekhai is hoping to remain under the radar whilst we get all in-a-tizzy over the Somali`s and allow the Nigerian element a breather.

As it stands I`m not so sure that the "System" is at fault but rather the misplaced energy of a wide-range of individuals from so-called Senior Investigative Journalists to equally Senior figures in the Law Library.

The entire ethos of these people (Professionals to a man !) has been to undermine and actively subvert the course of our Asylum and Judicial systems.

Pamela Izevbekhai herself has been comprehensively shown as a person not to be trusted in relation to truthfullness.
Additionally,we still have unanswered questions regarding the gathering and proofing of medical evidence regarding to her claim.

Nobody wants to admit to losing sight of reality in this case,whereby the mere ability to be Female with Two Children was constantly given as reason enough to suspend or ignore large chunks of our native Law.

Would the,as yet still absent Tony Izevbekhai have merited such an outpouring of unquestioning support had he been the central figure? (although I believe he IS a far more important element in this case than is being admitted)

Kevin Myers in the Independent today touches on the entire issue of gender in relation to how our laws are administered.

It`s not an easy read nor should it be,but he does draw back the curtain on a situation that needs far deeper investigation.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-it-is-obscene-that-these-two-teenage-shethugs-are-free-2176098.html

The entire Pamela Izevbekhai issue has never been about racism,asylum or oppression.
It has been about a deliberate,concerted and long-running attempt to barge through a societys laws,rules and regulations for less than sincere reasons.

From recent events in the higher courts I`m beginning to think Ms Izevbekhai`s case should be transferred to the Commercial Division of the High Court where there is robust evidence of the presiding Judiciary being unwilling to listen to fairy-stories and instead delivering judgements based upon the facts.

conorhal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hopefully when this case does eventually draw to a close, it will act as a legal precedent for dealing with other similar claims in a speedy manner. The problem with attempting to dismiss the evidence she has presented rather then pursuing a point of law is that the system then stays open to similar abuses in future.

Fuhrer

walshb wrote: »

And then when she gets to the Supreme Court, listen to the Supreme Court judge wonder if the court is the proper court to hear her case? You couldn't make it up, these high powered judges don't even know the law themselves....Adjournment, appeal, adjournment, appeal and on and on and on!

Oh, good we've got a legal expert on boards.


So tell us, what is the law for deportations and appeals?


Could you please reference the specific parts of the law that you are reffering to as well?


Thanks, much appreciated.

The Corinthian

conorhal wrote: »

Hopefully when this case does eventually draw to a close, it will act as a legal precedent for dealing with other similar claims in a speedy manner. The problem with attempting to dismiss the evidence she has presented rather then pursuing a point of law is that the system then stays open to similar abuses in future.

I think you and perhaps some others have kind of missed the point of this thread, which was not to view it from the rather tiresome "send 'er back where she came from" perspective - quite the opposite, if she has committed fraud and perversion of justice, then I would not send her back. I'd keep her in Ireland - in prison.

One of the two reasons for this thread is that should this case act as a catalyst for changes "for dealing with other similar claims in a speedy manner", it could damage the legal system of appeal and rights that covers far more than just asylum seekers.

The problem with this case is that someone in Izevbekhai's position has no reason not to commit fraud, there is no disincentive for her not to, no penalty if she does and is caught. A bogus asylum seeker can tell the truth and be deported. Lie and be caught and be deported, all the same. Or lie and be believed and get to stay.

Complimentary to this, and something that also touches on many other legal cases, is the role of mother and how this creates this near legal immunity in many cases in society, and to which both I and AlekSmart have touched on. For example, there has never been a successful criminal case against a mother for paternity fraud in Ireland or even the UK that I am aware of. Considering the horrific consequences to the victims (the man and the child) and that such frauds do occur (regardless of frequency), it seems utterly bizarre that none have ever been brought to justice, while defrauding teens of their debs money will get you five years.

Playing the 'mother' card has been central to this case, both legally and publicly - indeed, she is seeking asylum for herself as well on the back of her children. And it is this same 'mother' card that is often played in court so as to allow some to avoid punishment when it comes to sentencing.

walshb

Fuhrer wrote: »

Oh, good we've got a legal expert on boards.


So tell us, what is the law for deportations and appeals?


Could you please reference the specific parts of the law that you are reffering to as well?


Thanks, much appreciated.

Giving out Legal Advice is forbidden on boards

I suppose 20+ times in court/high court/supreme court would sound alarm bells
in my ears as regards the efficiency of our legal system.

BTW, this isn't legal advice I am giving...ha

Kivaro

conorhal wrote: »

Hopefully when this case does eventually draw to a close, it will act as a legal precedent for dealing with other similar claims in a speedy manner. The problem with attempting to dismiss the evidence she has presented rather then pursuing a point of law is that the system then stays open to similar abuses in future.

I hope that changes would be made to the system as a result of this farce. But who would initiate it? Do politicians today have the backbone to tackle 'race-sensitive' laws? They certainly did not back in the day when fraud was prevalent in the asylum application process. Even if Pam gets deported, another variant of her appeal will be filed by someone else (based on the current laws). This will continue ad nauseum until the politicians figure out that the country is being taken for a ride, at the expense of the genuine asylum seeker and the tax payer.

And I agree with The Corinthian: She should spend time in prison first. It will act as a deterrent to fraudsters. It will not deter genuine asylum seekers as they wouldn't give a crap about going to prison in Ireland if they are escaping persecution back in their own countries.

kmick

It strengthens my belief that the law punishes only the law abiding citizen who fears it. To those who do not fear the law there is nothing to fear. This will end when she flees to the UK.

Fuhrer

kmick wrote: »

To those who do not fear the law there is nothing to fear.

Good god.

Kivaro

Fuhrer wrote: »

Good god.

If you are going to participate in the discussion, why not do it in a constructive manner.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

This will end when she flees to the UK.

Kmick`s point is hugely valid and it remains one of the less investigated parts of this tragi-comic production.

The role of Tony Izevbekhai in the entire scenario has consistently been played down and coincedentally ignored by the Irish Media as it spread it`s net far and wide throughout Africa in an attempt to both support Pamela at all costs and to do-down the Nigerian Government.

Tony Izevbekhai`s business contacts in the UK and the greater Izevbekhai familial connection to the UK are exceedingly relevant to this case,yet appear to be beyond the pale in investigative terms.

The Pamela Izevbekhai case,or rather,how the Irish State fares against her,is of GREAT importance to the Trafficking Industry worldwide,but particularly in Africa.

Let nobody be under the illusion that Pamela Izevbekhai`s travels through the Irish Judicial Process is a lonely unobserved one,it`s far from it.

The appearance of a Nigerian Legal Representative is a new and interesting twist and may well see some new and equally interesting legal arguements being brought forward for the Learned Irish Judiciary to ruminate upon.

All very desireable in a democracy you might say,but who`s going to pay for it ?

Sleepy

If she were jailed in Ireland for false asylum seeking, wasting the courts time or whatever would that not lead to the Irish state having to take her children into care and de facto granting her what she wants for her children?

I don't know the details of the case but from what I do know it's just another example of how poor the Irish legal system is.

conorhal

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you and perhaps some others have kind of missed the point of this thread, which was not to view it from the rather tiresome "send 'er back where she came from" perspective - quite the opposite, if she has committed fraud and perversion of justice, then I would not send her back. I'd keep her in Ireland - in prison.

One of the two reasons for this thread is that should this case act as a catalyst for changes "for dealing with other similar claims in a speedy manner", it could damage the legal system of appeal and rights that covers far more than just asylum seekers.

The problem with this case is that someone in Izevbekhai's position has no reason not to commit fraud, there is no disincentive for her not to, no penalty if she does and is caught. A bogus asylum seeker can tell the truth and be deported. Lie and be caught and be deported, all the same. Or lie and be believed and get to stay.

Complimentary to this, and something that also touches on many other legal cases, is the role of mother and how this creates this near legal immunity in many cases in society, and to which both I and AlekSmart have touched on. For example, there has never been a successful criminal case against a mother for paternity fraud in Ireland or even the UK that I am aware of. Considering the horrific consequences to the victims (the man and the child) and that such frauds do occur (regardless of frequency), it seems utterly bizarre that none have ever been brought to justice, while defrauding teens of their debs money will get you five years.

Playing the 'mother' card has been central to this case, both legally and publicly - indeed, she is seeking asylum for herself as well on the back of her children. And it is this same 'mother' card that is often played in court so as to allow some to avoid punishment when it comes to sentencing.

I don't think it applies exclusively to women. There is a real and substantial culture of 'light touch regulation' in the courts. The ammount of serious crimes that recieve a suspended sentence is staggering. The courts will accept any old excuse not to jail an individual and gives far too much concideration to the defendant and their curcumstances while none is given to the victims of their crimes.
We know where light touch financial regulation got us and we can't say we weren't warned that 'light touch social regulation' and a 'light touch approach to immigration' will not result in disaster either, you only need to look to places like Moyross to see the warning lights on the road ahead.

donkey balls

in my opinion our asylum process is fair the asylum seeker goes through the stages of seeking asylum if their refused it they should be on the next commercial flight home,why should they be allowed to seek additional hearings/court cases that drag on how many solicitors would represent them for free if they felt that an injustice was been done?
as for pamela i think jailing her would only drag the episode out even further she should be given a suspended prison sentence and sent on her way,our laws need to be changed regarding the asylum process our politicians wont touch the issue due to the R card being played(and the possible loss of votes).

we also need to change the way we deport failed asylum seekers, at present the govt/gnib charter acft(which is extremely expensive)then you have the gnib officers/medical staff that travel with the people to there home countries.
the likes of the US&Austrailia just put you on the next available commercial flight,that's what we should be doing not holding there hands all the way home:mad:

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

If she were jailed in Ireland for false asylum seeking, wasting the courts time or whatever would that not lead to the Irish state having to take her children into care and de facto granting her what she wants for her children?

Perhaps, although that assumes that anyone who were to use their children as a means to fraudulently gain asylum really is looking after anyone's interests but their own.

Ultimately, it should not be used as a 'get out of jail' card, otherwise justice becomes meaningless.

conorhal wrote: »

I don't think it applies exclusively to women. There is a real and substantial culture of 'light touch regulation' in the courts.

Certainly there may well be problems throughout the justice system, as you say, however it cannot be denied that on top of these problems mothers are treated considerably more leniently - that is something independent of any 'light touch regulation' in the courts.

donkey balls wrote: »

in my opinion our asylum process is fair the asylum seeker goes through the stages of seeking asylum if their refused it they should be on the next commercial flight home,why should they be allowed to seek additional hearings/court cases that drag on how many solicitors would represent them for free if they felt that an injustice was been done?

I don't think that it is the system of appeals that is broken, per say, but the accountability that surrounds it.

As I said, a bogus asylum seeker may lie all they like - commit perjury or fraud - because in the end they will suffer no worse fate than with an honest but weak asylum application. Unless this, rather than the appeals system, changes, bogus asylum cases will continue to be encouraged, as there is no deterrent.

Additionally, unless cases, such as the breaking of court order of access or paternity fraud are treated with the severity they deserve, justice will be continue to be perverted through the act of 'pleading the belly'.

(Please note: I am aware that breaking of court order of child/spousal maintenance is now also equally unenforced, although this is a recent development and does not excuse that up until recently was perused with the full force of the law, while a mother breaking a court order would never be enforced).

BryanL

Asylum industry, not system.
It has been openly abused for years, a money making machine for a lot of Irish people.
I would say the only people not benefitting from asylum in Ireland are the people that most need it, but don't have the funds to access it.
Bryan

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, although that assumes that anyone who were to use their children as a means to fraudulently gain asylum really is looking after anyone's interests but their own.

Ultimately, it should not be used as a 'get out of jail' card, otherwise justice becomes meaningless.

That's kind of my point. Even with the threat of a jail sentence for false claims there's still an incentive there for many to make the false claim. So, justice would still be meaningless.

Laminations

Sleepy wrote: »

If she were jailed in Ireland for false asylum seeking, wasting the courts time or whatever would that not lead to the Irish state having to take her children into care and de facto granting her what she wants for her children?

I don't know the details of the case but from what I do know it's just another example of how poor the Irish legal system is.

I'd still argue for jailing her, and after she has done her time deport her. Her children on the other hand should be given Irish/dual citizenship as they have spent their formative years here and should not be punished for their mothers crimes. They can be taken into care while their mother is in prison and it should be a lesson to the government and legal system to get their fingers out and process these cases faster (with fraud being reason to have your application immediately cancelled). Allowing kids to grow up here because of our inability to expediate the asylum process means we cant just kick em out years later IMO.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

That's kind of my point. Even with the threat of a jail sentence for false claims there's still an incentive there for many to make the false claim. So, justice would still be meaningless.

Nope, as I said, you are assuming that anyone who were to use their children as a means to fraudulently gain asylum really is looking after anyone's interests but their own - or even simply ready to sacrifice themselves for their own children. If this is not the case, such an 'incentive' is pretty weak.

If the Izevbekhai is based upon an invention and her daughters are in no danger, then the reality is that she's not really interested in her daughters remaining in Ireland as much as all of them remaining in Ireland freely.

BryanL wrote: »

Asylum industry, not system.
It has been openly abused for years, a money making machine for a lot of Irish people.
I would say the only people not benefitting from asylum in Ireland are the people that most need it, but don't have the funds to access it.

True. If it wasn't for asylum cases there would be quite a few barristers with quite a bit less work out there. Different discussion though.

ParkRunner

I can only imagine if she was thrown into jail what kind of case she would take to the Court of Criminal Appeal!

Sleepy

Who pays for the barristers in asylum cases or need I even ask?

john-joe

What's the latest news on this case??
Thanks

Pot Noodle =

Is she still here its a joke send her off now

Vinegar Hill

Sleepy wrote: »

Who pays for the barristers in asylum cases or need I even ask?

You do and every other taxpayer....

DeVore

i aint no fancy big city lawyering guy like you folk but....



if you were going to deport me to Nigeria where i would have my dick chopped off at the very least..... i'd pull every trick in the book too.


I aint commenting on the rights and wrongs, nor on what *should* happen.... im just sayin' like!

DeV.

goose2005

DeVore wrote: »

i aint no fancy big city lawyering guy like you folk but....



if you were going to deport me to Nigeria where i would have my dick chopped off at the very least..... i'd pull every trick in the book too.


I aint commenting on the rights and wrongs, nor on what *should* happen.... im just sayin' like!

DeV.

There's no prospect of anyone performing fgm except the izevbekhai family. She can move to Abuja if she wants to get away from them.

Kivaro

DeVore wrote: »

if you were going to deport me to Nigeria where i would have my dick chopped off at the very least..... i'd pull every trick in the book too.

That's just a ridiculous statement. Have you not been following the case.

What person in their right mind would find it acceptable to send a child back to a place where FGM would take place?
Answer: No-one.

Then why is there such an outcry with this woman's actions?
Answer: Because she is a compulsive liar, that's why.
Using your children and the threat of FGM in order to obtain asylum is inexcusable.

The Nigerian authorities have assured the Irish Government that it will not happen if the family return to their home. That does not exclude the family from willingly partaking in it (for cultural reasons). It has been done in Ireland a number of times by Nigerian families.

Izevbekhai is making a laughing stock of the current asylum appeal process and for that, we thank her ................. as changes may be made as a result of this case (as least it is something we can hope for).

Nodin

Actually it's because she lied about having a child that died due to FGM. The idea that somebody would lie about something so verifiable (let alone tragic) never occurred to me, I have to say.

djpbarry

goose2005 wrote: »

There's no prospect of anyone performing fgm except the izevbekhai family. She can move to Abuja if she wants to get away from them.

Yeah, but she'll still be in Nigeria.

The Corinthian

I think people are losing track of the topic. This thread is not about people who have genuine asylum cases, it is about those who do not and commit perjury and pervert the course of justice and how the current system does not deter them from doing so. The Izevbekhai case is simply an example of one that appears to fall into this category.

It is also about how the law (and society in general) seems to grant lenient treatment or outright immunity from criminal acts on the basis of being a mother, again not deterring some from carrying out criminal acts.

anymore

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think people are losing track of the topic. This thread is not about people who have genuine asylum cases, it is about those who do not and commit perjury and pervert the course of justice and how the current system does not deter them from doing so. The Izevbekhai case is simply an example of one that appears to fall into this category.

It is also about how the law (and society in general) seems to grant lenient treatment or outright immunity from criminal acts on the basis of being a mother, again not deterring some from carrying out criminal acts.

This thread should be read in conjunction with the 'Protest on Rooftop' thread to get an idea of the priorities of this country.

AlekSmart

This thread is not about people who have genuine asylum cases, it is about those who do not and commit perjury and pervert the course of justice and how the current system does not deter them from doing so. The Izevbekhai case is simply an example of one that appears to fall into this category.

And with that apposite Corinthian quote,perhaps it`s time to enquire as to how Ms Izevbekhai`s case is currently progressing ?

The Corinthian

AlekSmart wrote: »

And with that apposite Corinthian quote,perhaps it`s time to enquire as to how Ms Izevbekhai`s case is currently progressing ?

All very quiet as far as the media is concerned. All I would comment is that the on-line support that existed up until shortly after her documents were reveled to be false has evaporated - even the letthemstay.org site is down and related social sites have not been updated since last year.

Pot Noodle =

Dont tell she is still here, i thought it would have been up in the courts a long time ago ie fraudulent documentation and all

jmcc

The Corinthian wrote: »

All very quiet as far as the media is concerned. All I would comment is that the on-line support that existed up until shortly after her documents were reveled to be false has evaporated - even the letthemstay.org site is down and related social sites have not been updated since last year.

The website is gone and the domain name is now parked with PPC advertising. It was renewed though. The media may have some serious questions to answer over its handling of this case.

Regards...jmcc

The Corinthian

jmcc wrote: »

The media may have some serious questions to answer over its handling of this case.

No, I suspect they will never want the topic ever discussed again, which might explain one of the reasons that the case has lost the media spotlight of before. It's kind of hard to maintain credibility in investigative journalism when you've been fooled so publicly, after all.

juleserino

Kivaro wrote: »

I hope that changes would be made to the system as a result of this farce. But who would initiate it? Do politicians today have the backbone to tackle 'race-sensitive' laws? They certainly did not back in the day when fraud was prevalent in the asylum application process. Even if Pam gets deported, another variant of her appeal will be filed by someone else (based on the current laws). This will continue ad nauseum until the politicians figure out that the country is being taken for a ride, at the expense of the genuine asylum seeker and the tax payer.

Politicians appear to have a propensity to support other politicians who perjure themselves in our courts. Ironically, this same body of individuals are vested by virtue of Article 15.2.1 of the constitution with law making power.

Willie O' Dea commited perjury in the High Court. He received no criminal sanction.

Despite his transgression Mr O' Dea received the full support, within the confines of the Dail I might add, of both the Prime Minister and the Minister for justice with regard said transgression, both of whom are lawyers.

Mr O'Dea was clearly guilty of perjury. He did not go to jail. No criminal sanction was imposed. It was not a civil matter, however it was managed as such, and subsequently settled as though his transgression was little more than a breach of civil law. This being despite the fact that it most certainly was not.

In light of such, I ask those of you posting here who advocate Ms. Izevbekhai's incarceration to explain why she SHOULD go to jail. It appears that she may well be guilty of perjury, however I ask you, how can our minister for justice together with members of our judiciary actively support Mr O' Dea who was clearly guilty of perjury in the High Court and then subsequently move to prosecute Ms. Izevbekhai for the same crime as that commited by Mr O' Dea.

Is this a magical application of our legislative instruments?

I do not mean to move "off topic" here with the O' Dea thing, however it appears that the imposition of a criminal sanction must first and foremost be consistent with an approach commensurate with the equal application of such a sanction.

Ms. Izevbekhai may appear to have acted with impunity, however it seems apparent that she may well have learned that not only is such an approach to our courts acceptable, but is perhaps also not without its rewards.

Just ask Mr O' Dea:D

The Corinthian

juleserino wrote: »

Ms. Izevbekhai may appear to have acted with impunity, however it seems apparent that she may well have learned that not only is such an approach to our courts acceptable, but is perhaps also not without its rewards.

Just because one transgression went unpunished does not mean that no transgression should go punished - it's a bit of a straw man. Certainly if a transgression goes unpunished due to political cronyism, then this is something that should be reformed, just as the punishment of transgression's that go unpunished through 'pleading of the belly' should also be reformed.

And this is a thread about the latter - just so we don't go OT.

Pot Noodle =

Because she is costing this State an absolute fortune that is why she must go

The Corinthian

Pot wrote:

Because she is costing this State an absolute fortune that is why she must go

But what do you say with regard to the topic of this thread?

Pot Noodle =

The Corinthian wrote: »

But what do you say with regard to the topic of this thread?

She is playing on this Female circumcision to remain in this Country and it is costing a fortune in fees that is all

The Corinthian

Pot wrote:

She is playing on this Female circumcision to remain in this Country and it is costing a fortune in fees that is all

Not really all as there are larger implications: Throw her out and there's no disincentive against lying - anyone who wants to chance their arm and commit fraud has nothing to lose. Throw her in jail and it may curb some of those who do attempt such scams in the future.

Pot Noodle =

So you say make a example of her but it still cost everyone more money and her children are still in the sate not that i have anything against them but i say just get rid of this Fraudulent women

juleserino

The Corinthian wrote: »

Just because one transgression went unpunished does not mean that no transgression should go punished - it's a bit of a straw man. Certainly if a transgression goes unpunished due to political cronyism, then this is something that should be reformed, just as the punishment of transgression's that go unpunished through 'pleading of the belly' should also be reformed.

And this is a thread about the latter - just so we don't go OT.

Ms. Izevbekhai should no doubt be subjected to the full force of the law, if it is proven that she transgressed said law. I agree with you there, however the example I gave was one of perjury, not necessarily one of political crony-ism. The players, together with the plea, may certainly differ but the transgression remains the same. Ms. Izevbekhai lied to the court in an endeavor to make her case. Mr' O Dea lied to the High Court in an effort not to have to appear later and make his. They are one and the same. Perjury is perjury, and it appears that perjury is the pre-dominant problem when one looks at asylum cases. It certainly is in the Izevbekhai case.

In light of the example given by not only the High Court, but also the Minister for Justice in Mr' O Deas case, is it not fair to assume that any individual with a weak case for asylum or any other legal issue, would rightly consider perjury as a means to an end?

It would be difficult not to consider perjury as a solution to ones asylum problems when one is presented with such an example as that which prevailed in the High Court with Mr 'O Dea.

We as a people look to the law for guidance, if we do not look before we leap the law will look into it on our behalf, albeit to our detriment or the detriment/benefit of others. Asylum seekers like everyone else read the papers. If they see such behavior going unpunished they will engage in this same behavior in order to achieve their goals and they will do so with impunity and with complete dis-regard for our laws, as has Ms. Izevbekhai.

I cannot understand how such considerations may be deemed off-topic. Examples can and must be made. An opportunity to make one such example was lost both on the High Court and the Government. It would have been a very public example had it been made, and might have served to send out the message that our courts will not put up perjury.

How can we expect others to respect our system of governance if we refuse to respect them ourselves.

AlekSmart

How can we expect others to respect our system of governance if we refuse to respect them ourselves.

With respect Juleserino,I think you`ll have your work cut-out to find any great outpouring of respect for the activities of Mr W O`Dea TD on Boards.ie or anywhere outside of his own constituency.

However I do accept your point regarding the unusual nature of this gentlemans behaviour,so much so that I believe it demands a seperate thread all to itself as it has implications for Irish society far beyond the Izevbekhai interest.

No, I suspect they will never want the topic ever discussed again, which might explain one of the reasons that the case has lost the media spotlight of before. It's kind of hard to maintain credibility in investigative journalism when you've been fooled so publicly, after all.

As The Corinthian mentions above,the Pamela Izevbekhai case,and the manner in which a sizeable number of our Political and Media establishment abandoned all sense of professional detachment and objectivity in a collective rush to embrace,what they appeared to believe was cultural diversity,now raises a skip-load of questions as to the status of these people to begin with.

The Irish Media,almost without exception,bought into the Izevbekhai story with great gusto and thence embarked on a campaign of supportive puff-pieces and assorted other anti Nigerian establishment articles.

The role of Mr Bouchier-Hayes and RTE in general also deserves further explaination to the greater public as well as the Licence Payers

However,I would concur with Julesrino that the reputation and good-standing of our Courts Service is now at al all-time low.

Indeed,could the redoubtable Mr O`Dea or his Legal Team have studied the Izevbekhai transcripts as they prepared for their day-in-the-box ?

The entire Izevbekhai circus has opened a gaping wound in the corpus of the Irish Higher Courts,which I suspect some of the Judiciary who have deliberated upon her pleas are only too well aware of.

The last opinion delivered by the Chief Justice was particularly unusual in that,to a layperson such as I,it appeared to suggest that the Chief Justice was all-at-sea as to whether his court had any role to play at all in the proceedings ?

Not really all as there are larger implications: Throw her out and there's no disincentive against lying - anyone who wants to chance their arm and commit fraud has nothing to lose. Throw her in jail and it may curb some of those who do attempt such scams in the future.

Again,The Corinthian manages to succinctly outline the realpolitik of the Izevbekhai case,the outcome of which is being followed closely in several juristictions.

Perhaps the only other punishment to concentrate the minds of the Izevbekhai camp and their shadowy facilitators is a major fine in lieu of jail-time...It would be interesting to see which option would be availed of ?

bonzos

Jusy to put iceing on the cake Sligo county clr. Veronice Cawley decided to take a break from junkets and offer this woman a civil reception...what a lunatic!but sure who care she is not paying for it:rolleyes:

john-joe

bonzos wrote: »

Jusy to put iceing on the cake Sligo county clr. Veronice Cawley decided to take a break from junkets and offer this woman a civil reception...what a lunatic!but sure who care she is not paying for it:rolleyes:

have you got a link to the above story?