The Words of the Brann Family

TF's Immigration case - What happened and where do we go from here?

Mark Brann
May 9, 2004

Letter from Tim Read

Dear brother and sisters,

I know that you have all been wondering what has happened about True Father's entry appeal, and the circumstances surrounding it. I didn't want to write until it became clear in my mind as to what we should do next.

First of all I would like to say thank you very, very much for your support and conditions that you made over the lat six months and longer. I know it has been very difficult for you to keep the heart and focus that was needed, and I know more than a few knees gave out along the way!

At first I was bitterly disappointed, felt personally very responsible, and was resigned to our seemingly endless fate of being misunderstood by most people. After a couple of days though, I changed my view somewhat. As Mark Brann mentions below, the case will go up to a higher court as it deals with some key issues in human rights law that have far reaching consequences beyond our own circumstances. After talking to Pres. Song, and reporting the outcome of the case to the European regional leaders, it became clear to me that we had to continue; that we couldn't just give up. For if we did, we were accepting that the Government was right in its stance against True Father, which is plainly unjust.

Please renew your determination to stand up against the prejudice and discrimination that True Father suffers. If we don't stand up for him, who will?

God bless.

ITPN Tim Read


TF's Immigration case - What happened and where do we go from here?
By Mark Brann

Why we appealed

We appealed against a decision taken personally by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett in May 2003 to exclude True Father from Britain on the grounds that his presence here would be a threat to "public order". This exclusion order followed a preliminary decision by his predecessor (Jack Straw) in April 2001 that he was "minded to exclude" TF on public order grounds. Between those two decisions (April 2001 - May 2003) a Review Process was conducted by civil servants at the Home Office to see whether there was any basis for excluding TF after getting input from "interested parties" (including Police, Charity Commission, INFORM (the government and mainstream church backed body that monitors issues relating to New Religions based on objective scientific studies) so called "anti-cult" groups, parents and relatives of UC members and UC members themselves. That Process was conducted with reasonable honesty, sincerity and fair-mindedness. From having been opposed to TF coming the civil servants eventually came round to recommending to the Home Secretary that TF be allowed in. In short, the tremendous investment of time effort and money on the part of brothers and sisters to move the result of the process our way was very successful. However, for purely political reasons, the Home Secretary decided to ignore the findings of his own review and excluded TF anyway. The same civil servants who had recommended TF be allowed to come were thus obligated to find some justification for keeping him out. The public order ground had become unsustainable mainly because the police said it was untrue. It was therefore decided to try to claim that concern about public order had in fact been just a slightly loose way of describing violation of individual rights such as those of parents who had allegedly had their families disrupted by their children's' involvement in the church.

Since it was a personal decision of the Home Secretary the only grounds for appeal lay on the basis that there had been a violation of TF's human rights in excluding him. We claimed that this had denied him freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association under the European Convention of Human Rights and The Human Rights Act in that he was wrongly prevented from associating with his followers and others and from delivering his message as a religious leader. We claimed that the decision had not had any true factual basis but had been tainted with prejudice and discrimination. In response the Home Office based its argument mainly on the entirely technical point that a person who applies to come into Britain from outside the jurisdiction does not have the protection of the human rights enjoyed by those within the jurisdiction. In fact there are cases that appear to indicate one way and others that indicate another, but in the opinion of TF's Counsel, David Pannick Q.C. the acknowledged leading expert at the Bar in the relevant fields of law, on balance the cases clearly show that TF does have human rights in this country. The Home Office also argued that there had been sufficient possible factual bases for the decision for the Adjudicator not to be justified in interfering with it. They argued that the Home Secretary had a very wide margin for discretion to make such a decision based on his own judgement and understanding and without undue interference from the courts.

What the Adjudicator decided

Basically the Adjudicator acted as little more than a rubber stamp for the government, agreeing with everything that they argued and simply ignoring a lot of the case on behalf of TF. The Adjudicator said that a person outside the jurisdiction does not have the rights we claimed for TF, therefore it was not even strictly necessary to decide whether they had been violated. Even if he was wrong on that technical point and TF did have human rights, he felt that they had not been violated because the Home Secretary was in a better position to know than the court and he, not the court, had been democratically elected to take the decision. One may well ask what is the point of judges in such cases if they are not able or willing to second guess officialdom and have the courage to substitute their own decisions for the patently flawed decisions of ministers? In short, the determination was a blatant abdication of judicial responsibility, taking the easy way out by saying the Home Secretary knows best and who are mere judges to interfere? The only plus point in the determination is a recommendation to allow a speeded up appeal if we want one.

What of the future?

Fortunately we do have the right of appeal - to a body called "The immigration Appeal Tribunal". This body sits with three assessors (a chairman who is sometimes even a fully fledged judge and two others) to hear appeals against decisions by Adjudicators. We have already instructed our specialist counsel to draw up the petition for leave to appeal. This has to be lodged by May 19 and state all the basic reasons why we say the decision was wrong and should be overturned. Soon after that petition is lodged (perhaps 3-4 weeks thereafter) a Tribunal Chairman will make the decision in private as to whether our appeal can go forward to hearing. Although this is by no means certain, the great importance of the points of law involved (quite apart from public interest in the case itself) makes it likely that the petition will be granted. If it were refused we could still seek Judicial Review of that decision. If granted, an appeal would, in the normal course, then be listed for hearing towards the end of this year or early next. However, it would be open to us to plead for the hearing to be "expedited" as per the recommendation of the Adjudicator. If successful we might then be able to bring the hearing forward somewhat, perhaps to as early as September or October. However it depends on many factors, including whether there is an available slot in the timetable for any hearing (or one can be made) and, no doubt, on the conditions we make.

The result is of course desperately disappointing. But let us not allow ourselves to be too down hearted. Having had more experience of providentially important court cases (TF's tax case in America, the European Parliament attack in the 80s, the French tax case in the 80s, seven different cases in Britain including the big charities case we won in 1988 and also other immigration cases of TF) than I care to remember, I want to strongly urge one point. Let us see this reverse with deep internal eyes. Let us not get too involved in the externals of why we didn't win, the injustice of the verdict, the shortcomings of the judge, the failings of politicians, what other courses of action we could take etc. etc. Instead let us realise that the solution is very much in our own hands. For all that much was done by many people, we have to throw up our hands and confess that we did not do enough for Heaven to allow us to win and must do more if we want to reclaim lost ground next time round. We need to reflect deeply on the individual, family, local church national and European levels as to what more we could or should be doing. We can and will win the day, but it is in our own hands.

I want to offer sincere and heartfelt thanks to all those who supported the legal efforts so whole-heartedly in so many ways. Nothing has been lost. Everything offered will be part of the foundation for victory next time.

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Information
Tparents Home