Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

kathy2

What she has done using her own children is child abuse in my view that damage.

Genuine assylm seekers will have this stupid womans horrible lies thrown in their face for years to come.

Come on now, if you cant see the damage that this woman has done then you are blind.

blueythebear

I'm pretty sure that the reports haven't said she's had 22 appeals. I think it refers to 22 court appearances. Unfortunately, that's somewhat sensationalist journalism for you as she couldn't have had 22 appeals. Also, her court appearance are NOT appeals, they're judical review cases and there is a subtle difference between the two.

If there has been 22 court appearances I would imagine she had taken anywhere between 4 and 6 judicial review cases including her Supreme Court case (which is an appeal of one of the high court cases). That's still quite alot mind you but I think it's unfair for people to be led to believe that she has had 22 judicial reviews.

The obvious next question is, how can she afford these? Have her lawyers (her solicitor and barrister, Mel Krystle SC) been working pro bono for all of these JR cases? I would doubt it. The Refugee Legal Service does not take judicial review cases, so it must have been a private solicitor firm(s) who are taking these cases. So who's paying them?

marcsignal

HollyB wrote: »

Except in situations like this, there's more than one shepherd boy. The earlier ones may get the benefit of the doubt but if enough of them are found to have misled the public, then a point will come when few, if any, shepherd boys are given the benefit of the doubt by that public, even the ones who are telling the truth.

my point exactly HollyB.

The fact is there are genuine cases out there, imo this is not one of them.

I've also noticed that the LTS crew have now changed their plea from:
'Let them stay because there is a risk of FGM' to 'Aaaaah sure the kids have been here for years now, <mumble> the forged documents are really a minor side issue </mumble>, let them stay anyway'

as i've said from the beginning, the person putting pressure on Pamela to have FGM performed on her kids is her mother in law.
So we have shelled out 400'000Euro so far, to sort out what amounts to a marital family squabble between Pamela and her Mother in law.

Nigeria is a constitutional democracy. There are more skyscrapers in Lagos than London. FGM is illegal there. The LTS crew would like us to believe that the country hasn't evolved beyond something you'd see in 'ZULU' with Michael Caine, and that there are gangs of savages weilding cigar cutters ready and waiting to pounce on Pamelas 2 daughters as soon as they step on to the tarmac at Lagos Airport, which in itself, ironically, is really quite racist.

sometimes it's important to remain cognisant, not of what the media, and the LTS crew, or RAR say, but of what they don't say.

ParkRunner

blueythebear wrote: »

The Refugee Legal Service does not take judicial review cases

Yes they do

blueythebear

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueythebear
The Refugee Legal Service does not take judicial review cases

Yes they do


I've never heard of them taking any judicial review cases. In fact, I was under the impression that the RLS tell asylum seekers to get private solicitors where there is a possibility of judicial review. The RLS have so many refugees on their hands that they can't cope and as a result, often recommend that asylum seekers go private if they can afford it.

HollyB

marcsignal wrote: »

as i've said from the beginning, the person putting pressure on Pamela to have FGM performed on her kids is her mother in law.
So we have shelled out 400'000Euro so far, to sort out what amounts to a marital family squabble between Pamela and her Mother in law.

Given the doubt cast over Pamela's testimony, perhaps it would be best to change that to "the person allegedly putting pressure on Pamela". It's possible that Mrs Izevbekhai Senior has been falsely accused.

ParkRunner

blueythebear wrote: »

Quote:
I've neever heard of them taking any judicial review cases. In fact, I was under the impression that the RLS tell asylum seekers to get private solicitors where there is a possibility of judicial review. The RLS have so many refugees on their hands that they can't cope and as a result, often recommend that asylum seekers go private if they can afford it.

They would be rarer than a private firm alright and they only really take strong cases but you do see a few down in the courts. Kind of odd alright as it is effectively State appointed solicitors v the State.
Maybe someone knows who the new legal reps are in the Pamela's case?

marcsignal

HollyB wrote: »

Given the doubt cast over Pamela's testimony, perhaps it would be best to change that to "the person allegedly putting pressure on Pamela". It's possible that Mrs Izevbekhai Senior has been falsely accused.

very good point HollyB

The Raven.

Ruth Buchanan on Pick of the Radio Week this morning included a playback of Marian Finuchan’s live interview with Pamela Izevbekhai – the one with the long embarrassing, silences, except this re-run had all these awkward, stalling gaps edited out. One could argue that this was merely to save time and present a more professional show, which it may have been. However, I have to say that it made Ms. Izevbekhai sound a lot more intelligent and alert than in the uncut version. Amazing what a bit of editing can do :rolleyes:!!

Buchanan ended the clip with the following declaration:

‘She got good news yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled that new evidence could be heard.’

What ‘good news’ ?

THE STATE has told the Supreme Court that it has evidence which, if true, means the lengthy legal bid by Nigerian mother Pamela Izevbekhai to prevent deportation proceeded on “a lie . . . so fundamental” that her case should be dismissed as an abuse of court process.

The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to admit that material, contained in four affidavits, but adjourned the State’s follow-up application to have Ms Izevbekhai’s action struck out as an abuse of court process and also adjourned an application by her lawyers to cease representing her.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0404/1224244010307.html

Anyone unfamiliar with the case would be led to believe that Pamela Izevbekhai had ‘new evidence’. What is going on with RTE these days? For that matter, if the State ‘has evidence’, why wasn’t it allowed to produce it on Friday, thus bringing the whole sorry saga to a close for once and for all? Ms. Izevbekhai is holding up the process yet again.

Ms Izevbekhai was objecting to the admission of the State’s affidavits and wanted the application to admit that adjourned so she could deal with it through her new solicitors, counsel added.

parasite

If you really want to be infuriated, listen to the utterly & credulous program on Newstalk now

opo

Once again we rely on the Sunday Times for information as the usual suspects are too busy gushing over the style to bother with the substance:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6037007.ece

THE government has refused to offer Pamela Izevbekhai a deal that would allow her to stay in Ireland with her two daughters in return for dropping her legal challenge against her deportation.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has written to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, which is considering the case, to say the Department of Justice “does not propose to make an offer of friendly settlement” in the landmark legal action.

This, I believe goes to the nub of the matter:

“The Nigerian government has given the Irish authorities an undertaking that nothing will happen to Pamela Izevbekhai and her children if they are repatriated,” said a government source.

“The Irish government has always believed that Izevbekhai and her daughters could return to Nigeria without fear of political or religious persecution. This case was never about whether Izevbekhai lost a daughter to FGM or not, it was always about whether they could be returned safely to Nigeria.”

HollyB

opo wrote: »

Once again we rely on the Sunday Times for information as the usual suspects are too busy gushing over the style to bother with the substance:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6037007.ece

At least the Sunday Times isn't toeing the party line, let them stay for the sake of the children, etc.

One thing I'm curious about - "THE government has refused to offer Pamela Izevbekhai a deal that would allow her to stay in Ireland with her two daughters in return for dropping her legal challenge against her deportation."

Do you think that the government were asked if they would be willing to offer a deal in exchange for the case being dropped, either by Pamela Izevbekhai and her legal team, or by her supporters?

Either way, it looks like the State isn't going to be willing to offer leave to remain if Pamela loses, despite the pressure from her supporters.

The Raven.

opo wrote: »

Once again we rely on the Sunday Times for information as the usual suspects are too busy gushing over the style to bother with the substance:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6037007.ece

Yes indeed. A much more reliable source. The following is from the same article:

If she succeeds in securing political asylum on the grounds that her daughters might he subjected to FGM if they were returned to Nigeria, it would result in hundreds of similar applications being lodged across Europe, according to immigration sources.

And it has already begun.

The Department of Justice has received at least two further applications from African women who claim they fled to Ireland in order to save their daughters from FGM.

The state denied both applications for asylum but sources believe the women involved may yet launch legal challenges against their deportations, depending on the outcome of the Izevbekhai case.

There is no way that this can be allowed to happen, and it's not just Ireland. This is just the tip of the iceberg :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:!!!!!

HollyB

The Raven. wrote: »

If she succeeds in securing political asylum on the grounds that her daughters might he subjected to FGM if they were returned to Nigeria, it would result in hundreds of similar applications being lodged across Europe, according to immigration sources.

And it has already begun.

I would say that hundreds is a conservative estimate, to say the least.

opo

HollyB wrote: »

At least the Sunday Times isn't toeing the party line, let them stay for the sake of the children, etc.

One thing I'm curious about - "THE government has refused to offer Pamela Izevbekhai a deal that would allow her to stay in Ireland with her two daughters in return for dropping her legal challenge against her deportation."

Do you think that the government were asked if they would be willing to offer a deal in exchange for the case being dropped, either by Pamela Izevbekhai and her legal team, or by her supporters?

Who knows. Could be part of those "conflicting instructions" her solicitor was remarkably coy about and clearly ran a mile from.

Try make sense of this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0404/1224244010307.html?via=mr

In reply to the judges, counsel said they wished to come off record due to “conflicting instructions”. Asked what he meant, he said the conflict involved “goes to the root of the case”.

He added that he appreciated the duty incumbent on lawyers, under the Bar Council’s code of conduct, to inform the court but his side had not been directly informed of “the specific wrongdoing”.

Because of the situation, he was not in a position to deal with the State’s motion.

The Raven.

HollyB wrote: »

One thing I'm curious about - "THE government has refused to offer Pamela Izevbekhai a deal that would allow her to stay in Ireland with her two daughters in return for dropping her legal challenge against her deportation."

Do you think that the government were asked if they would be willing to offer a deal in exchange for the case being dropped, either by Pamela Izevbekhai and her legal team, or by her supporters?

I'm curious about that too. What kind of a deal is that anyway? It's like saying 'I will stop asking to stay if you let me stay' :rolleyes:! I don't know who came up with that one.

HollyB

opo wrote: »

Who knows. Could be part of those "conflicting instructions" her solicitor was remarkably coy about and clearly ran a mile from.

Try make sense of this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0404/1224244010307.html?via=mr

I'm not sure about the specifics but I think that, if (hypothetically speaking) Pamela had actually come out and told them that she had lied about Elizabeth's existence and there was actually no threat to Naomi and Jemima, or if she told them that she had knowingly supplied false documentation or that she had done something illegal, they would be obligated to disclose this to the court. However, unless she actually spells it out for them, even if they were 99.9% certain that she was lying, they wouldn't be able to say anything.

Who knows what's going on with this case?

There could be something fishy going on, or her lawyers might be trying to get out before it fails, or any other reasons. I can't imagine that her lawyers would take on the case pro bono purely out of the goodness of their hearts; it's been a long time, and it would have involved a lot of work, all for nothing, so my guess would be that the good publicity of a win in a high profile case like this might have been the carrot.

However, if there is fraud involved - and, at the very least, fraudulent documents have been admitted as evidence in previous appeals - they may not want to be associated with that sort of thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

97i9y3941

i think its an insult that the taxpayers have to cough up for all of this,other wise if they didnt had to pay im sure we woundnt too much applications

opo

HollyB wrote: »

I'm not sure about the specifics but I think that, if (hypothetically speaking) Pamela had actually come out and told them that she had lied about Elizabeth's existence and there was actually no threat to Naomi and Jemima, or if she told them that she had knowingly supplied false documentation or that she had done something illegal, they would be obligated to disclose this to the court. However, unless she actually spells it out for them, even if they were 99.9% certain that she was lying, they wouldn't be able to say anything.

Who knows what's going on with this case?

There could be something fishy going on, or her lawyers might be trying to get out before it fails, or any other reasons. I can't imagine that her lawyers would take on the case pro bono purely out of the goodness of their hearts; it's been a long time, and it would have involved a lot of work, all for nothing, so my guess would be that the good publicity of a win in a high profile case like this might have been the carrot.

However, if there is fraud involved - and, at the very least, fraudulent documents have been admitted as evidence in previous appeals - they may not want to be associated with that sort of thing.

I agree.

The pro bono angle is correct in my opinion. A ton of free publicity in an area exploding with follow on claims and lets not forget, it's essentially no foal no fee.

In this scenario, just as in the personal injury claims fiasco that also had to be halted, the winning case normally funds a couple of losers and the publicity never hurts either way. Unless, that is, you are exposed for facilitating a complete charlatan.

The Raven.

opo wrote: »

Who knows. Could be part of those "conflicting instructions" her solicitor was remarkably coy about and clearly ran a mile from.

Try make sense of this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0404/1224244010307.html?via=mr

In reply to the judges, counsel said they wished to come off record due to “conflicting instructions”. Asked what he meant, he said the conflict involved “goes to the root of the case”.

He added that he appreciated the duty incumbent on lawyers, under the Bar Council’s code of conduct, to inform the court but his side had not been directly informed of “the specific wrongdoing”.

Because of the situation, he was not in a position to deal with the State’s motion.

It looks as though her council is saying that they were fooled by the lies, and the ‘conflicting instructions’ from ‘herself’ are off the wall: incomprehensible and unsustainable.

The Raven.

opo wrote: »

The pro bono angle is correct in my opinion. A ton of free publicity in an area exploding with follow on claims and lets not forget, it's essentially no foal no fee.

I think there you have hit the nail on the head. If they won this case, they would be sought after by a multitude of copycats, who wouldn't exist if they lose !!

opo

The Raven. wrote: »

I think there you have hit the nail on the head. If they won this case, they would be sought after by a multitude of copycats, who wouldn't exist if they lose !!

Ironically, the copycats are still there win or lose. The delay game via the legal circus remains one of the last great pull factors for bogus claims (the other - the lack of deportations).

Check the legal diary online if you doubt this. These cases are majority funded by the taxpayer.

Publicity simply guarantees a bigger place at the trough.

The Raven.

opo wrote: »

Ironically, the copycats are still there win or lose. The delay game via the legal circus remains one of the last great pull factors for bogus claims (the other - the lack of deportations).

That is ironic all right. I would have thought that if this case (which specifically uses the excuse of FGM), is a victory for the State, it would act as a deterrent to countless others who would seek to use the same excuse.

Check the legal diary online if you doubt this. These cases are majority funded by the taxpayer.

I don't doubt it. You are obviously more informed on that aspect than I am. However, out of curiosity as regards statistics and any other available information, I did check the legal diary. I don't know if I was looking in the right place because I'm still none the wiser. All I could see on the asylum seekers were long lists with capital letters. The only clear information was for other types of cases. Do you have a link?

blueythebear

"Conflicting instructions" means she changed her story. She obviously told her counsel to come clean as to the false documents. Counsel didn't wanna do so as he was waiting to see the contents of the State's affidavits first. Hence they asked to come off record.

Also, barristers requesting time so as to respond to an affidavit suggests that the State's affidavits raise some very good points e.g. false documents!

An adjournment request from teh applicant in this context will mean they wish to withdraw the case, come off record or change their grounds for judicial review/appeal. Either way not good for pamela and her supporters.

AlekSmart

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/how-i-am-being-torn-apart-by-the-awful-plight-of-my-friend-pamela-1698837.html

Well The Independent Group are obviously following RTE`s lead in abandoning their remaining "Journalistic" principles in favour of ......well,I`m not quite sure what ?

If the likes of Ms Lelsie have any FACTUAL evidence which has not already been proffered in Ms Izevbekhai`s favour then let them produce it.
For a major National Title to print what amounts to a biased paean to a Friend is little more than Tabloidism at it`s worst.

Surely The place for Ms Leslie`s opinions is the Letters to the Editor Page ?

The Orb

Posters can speculate all they like about what happened in the supreme court and future implications etc, this fraudster has been found out, there are no more legal challenges she can take, there is nowhere else for her to turn, she will be deported, the only question now is when.

Vinegar Hill

AlekSmart wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/how-i-am-being-torn-apart-by-the-awful-plight-of-my-friend-pamela-1698837.html

Well The Independent Group are obviously following RTE`s lead in abandoning their remaining "Journalistic" principles in favour of ......well,I`m not quite sure what ?

If the likes of Ms Lelsie have any FACTUAL evidence which has not already been proffered in Ms Izevbekhai`s favour then let them produce it.
For a major National Title to print what amounts to a biased paean to a Friend is little more than Tabloidism at it`s worst.

Surely The place for Ms Leslie`s opinions is the Letters to the Editor Page ?

Fom the same article you provided..

Many Nigerians claim that the practice has rapidly changed in urban areas. Some tribal cultures within Nigeria, like Pamela's own Natal people, have never had FGM and various cultures within Nigeria say it is no longer so widespread.

Can anyone explain that statement?

LostinBlanch

Ali Bracken in her article on page 13 of the Tribune* has come up with some interesting facts that I certainly wasn't aware of. Namely that the documentation Pamela Izevbekhai supplied has the wrong address for the hospital. The GNIB inspector and embassy staff who visited the hospital unanounced confirms this fact.

Also re the radio interviews supposedly of Dr Unokanjo. There were two the RTE on with Boucher Hayes in 2005, and also one in January 2007 on Ocean Sounds in Sligo. Both from different men claiming to be Dr Unokanjo but both peddling the same story put out by Pamela Izevbekhai. Interestingly. the GNIB inspector and embassy staff describe the real Dr Unokanjo as a gentleman in his 60's yet both radio interviews are of individuals who sound decades younger.

*No link at the moment as the tribune puts it's online material up late on sunday / early monday morning.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.