Lying immigrants

June 17th, 2008

There is an old common law principle that extracts from wrongdoers any profit from their wrong. The principle discourages crime where the official penalty may be lower than the profit to be gained.

Will the people be kicked out who’ve benefited from what is alleged to have been misuse of Immigration Service powers, or perhaps corruption?

Has anyone heard anything to indicate our official attitude to residency queue jumpers (Ms Thompson’s relatives?) or more recently the people whose lies were ‘overlooked”?

Filed under Criminal Justice

Comments

Sentence first – verdict afterwards?

What crime had you in mind for the people alleged to be residency queue jumpers and what evidence do you think there is?
The minister for immigration may be fair game but ‘ministerial responsibility” does not cut much ice in NZ. The department head and individuals may be culpable or even criminally liable but I think you are drawing a long bow for the immigrants to be held criminal.
It may be a neat common law principle for you legal eagles but when has it been applied in NZ?

Perhaps the most well known application is where a family member who kills is not permitted to inherit from the victim, notwithstanding a specific bequest.

My question was genuine. There may be good reasons why a similar principle should not prevail in this area, but I’m surprised not to have seen any discussion of it.

Usually the first response to enforcement in a difficult area is to make the offense as profitless as possible. That is why, for example, trading in endangered species is so heavily penalised, even for the innocent buyers.

In relation to immigration breaches I would be surprised if false statements did not contravene one of the provisions against fraudulent use of documents.

The beneficiaries of what have been reported as Mary Anne’s interventions may not have known how they were assisted. If they did, or even if they did not, the message about queue jumping would be strong if they had to return to the queue.

I wrote the DOMPOST when this broke asking when the family was going to be sent back.
I also asked whether there would be criminal prosecutions to one of Helen’s circle.
They haven’t printed it.

Stephen your note is bang on the head.

I’m afraid after paintergate speedgate and all the rest by our No 1 person in the land that consequences for leadership doesn’t happen in NZ anymore.

Mike Mckee
Seatoun

It obviously depends on the circumstances. If the applicants didn’t know about the malpractice then obviously they should stay if they are behaving themselves.