SoulAsylum
10-04-06, 01:52 PM
Sham marriage law breaches rights
Press Association
Monday April 10, 2006
Government rules to prevent sham marriages by immigrants are unfair as they discriminate against those who are not Anglicans, the high court ruled today.
Justice Stephen Silber declared that the rules breached the European convention on human rights because they require immigrants from outside the European Union to get permission from the Home Office if they intend to marry anywhere other than an Anglican church.
The judge said the rules, which were intended to prevent people from marrying non-citizens for the sole purpose of allowing them to become residents of Britain, were unreasonable.
Article continues (http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,,1750943,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704#article_continue)http://image.guardian.co.uk/Ads/MPU/arrow9x7.gif
</IMG>
But the Home Office said the rules were essential to crack down on sham marriages and was considering an appeal.
The rules provide an exemption for Anglican weddings because the government presumed the church has safeguards to prevent sham marriages.
Judge Silber said there was no evidence to support this presumption, nor any good reason why religious ceremonies of other faiths and Christian denominations should be treated differently.
"I was troubled by the fact that though there is evidence that sham marriages take place in registry office marriages, there is no evidence or assertion that they take place in non-Anglican religious marriage ceremonies," he said.
"Many of the factors on which the secretary of state relies as justifying exempting Anglican church marriages could or might also apply not only to other Christian church services - whether Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian or Baptist - but also to all religious marriages conducted by the appropriate official in, for example, mosques, Hindu temples and synagogues."
The Home Office said that since the rules were introduced last year under section 19 of the 2004 Asylum and Immigrants Act, the number of suspicious marriages reported by registry offices had dropped significantly.
"The government is disappointed by the judgment handed down today. We are considering its full implications and whether to pursue an appeal, as well as examining the options for the future," a Home Office spokesman said.
But lawyers for immigrants caught by the rules said the government was unlawfully interfering with the rights of couples to marry when their relationships were genuine and not a sham.
Among the people who brought the case were Mahmoud Baiai, a Muslim from Algeria, and Izabela Trzcinska, a Polish Roman Catholic. They met when Ms Trzcinska was working in a London pub and started living together in October 2004. Mr Baiai applied to the Home Office for permission to marry but was refused because of his illegal immigrant status in February 2005.
Richard Drabble, QC, argued that Miss Trzcinska was lawfully working in the UK. He said the fact that her fiance was unlawfully in the country was not a bar to marriage under British law. The right to marry was not dependent on the right to reside in the country.
Having to leave the country to marry could also result in the loss of jobs for workers such as Miss Trzcinska, from countries such as Poland, which has just acceded to the EU, the QC added. Mr Baiai could not travel to Poland to marry because he lacked documents and it was dangerous for the couple to travel to Algeria. Now Mr Justice Silber has upheld their complaints, the high court will consider whether two other couples whose marriages have been delayed by the new rules are entitled to damages. In one case a child was born out of wedlock because a marriage was delayed by the Home Office rules.
www.guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk)
Press Association
Monday April 10, 2006
Government rules to prevent sham marriages by immigrants are unfair as they discriminate against those who are not Anglicans, the high court ruled today.
Justice Stephen Silber declared that the rules breached the European convention on human rights because they require immigrants from outside the European Union to get permission from the Home Office if they intend to marry anywhere other than an Anglican church.
The judge said the rules, which were intended to prevent people from marrying non-citizens for the sole purpose of allowing them to become residents of Britain, were unreasonable.
Article continues (http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,,1750943,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704#article_continue)http://image.guardian.co.uk/Ads/MPU/arrow9x7.gif
</IMG>
But the Home Office said the rules were essential to crack down on sham marriages and was considering an appeal.
The rules provide an exemption for Anglican weddings because the government presumed the church has safeguards to prevent sham marriages.
Judge Silber said there was no evidence to support this presumption, nor any good reason why religious ceremonies of other faiths and Christian denominations should be treated differently.
"I was troubled by the fact that though there is evidence that sham marriages take place in registry office marriages, there is no evidence or assertion that they take place in non-Anglican religious marriage ceremonies," he said.
"Many of the factors on which the secretary of state relies as justifying exempting Anglican church marriages could or might also apply not only to other Christian church services - whether Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian or Baptist - but also to all religious marriages conducted by the appropriate official in, for example, mosques, Hindu temples and synagogues."
The Home Office said that since the rules were introduced last year under section 19 of the 2004 Asylum and Immigrants Act, the number of suspicious marriages reported by registry offices had dropped significantly.
"The government is disappointed by the judgment handed down today. We are considering its full implications and whether to pursue an appeal, as well as examining the options for the future," a Home Office spokesman said.
But lawyers for immigrants caught by the rules said the government was unlawfully interfering with the rights of couples to marry when their relationships were genuine and not a sham.
Among the people who brought the case were Mahmoud Baiai, a Muslim from Algeria, and Izabela Trzcinska, a Polish Roman Catholic. They met when Ms Trzcinska was working in a London pub and started living together in October 2004. Mr Baiai applied to the Home Office for permission to marry but was refused because of his illegal immigrant status in February 2005.
Richard Drabble, QC, argued that Miss Trzcinska was lawfully working in the UK. He said the fact that her fiance was unlawfully in the country was not a bar to marriage under British law. The right to marry was not dependent on the right to reside in the country.
Having to leave the country to marry could also result in the loss of jobs for workers such as Miss Trzcinska, from countries such as Poland, which has just acceded to the EU, the QC added. Mr Baiai could not travel to Poland to marry because he lacked documents and it was dangerous for the couple to travel to Algeria. Now Mr Justice Silber has upheld their complaints, the high court will consider whether two other couples whose marriages have been delayed by the new rules are entitled to damages. In one case a child was born out of wedlock because a marriage was delayed by the Home Office rules.
www.guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk)