17 February 2025<\/span> by Georgia Bowen<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n In UK News\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The Home Office has tightened its \u2018good character\u2019 guidance for citizenship applicants who entered the UK illegally or via dangerous routes. From 10 February 2025, those applying who arrived without \u2018a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey\u2019 <\/em>will \u2018normally<\/em>\u2018 have their citizenship applications refused. This is \u2018regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry<\/em>\u2019. A \u2018dangerous journey<\/em>\u2019 includes, but is not limited to, \u2018travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle<\/em>\u2019.\u00a0 The Home Office has confirmed these new rules would \u2018likely not apply\u2019 to children, \u2018given illegal entry is normally considered outside of a child\u2019s control\u2019. This policy shift reflects the government\u2019s attempt to deter illegal migration via \u2018small boats\u2019, and comes alongside the introduction of the recent Border Security, Asylum an Immigration Bill. The change departs from the policy that illegal entrants could have their citizenship applications considered after ten years. These updates have been criticised as a potential contravention of UK obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention, which prohibits the penalisation of asylum seekers and refugees for illegal entry.<\/p>\n MI5 has admitted providing false information to the courts regarding neo-Nazi agent, \u2018X\u2019, accused of attacking his former partner \u2018Beth\u2019. Her complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) was heard in her absence in closed sessions, due to MI5\u2019s claim that it could neither confirm nor deny X\u2019s identity for national security reasons. However, it was revealed that a senior MI5 officer had disclosed X\u2019s identity to a BBC journalist, while attempting to dissuade the organisation from naming him in a report. This contradicted the Security Service\u2019s stance in evidence given to multiple courts that national security reasons meant its \u2018neither confirm nor deny\u2019 policy was strict. The MI5 Director-General has given an \u2018unreserved apology to the court\u2019, emphasising the agency\u2019s commitment to accuracy and transparency. This revelation has raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence provided by the security service, which is given deferential treatment in the courts. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced an independent review into the incident.<\/p>\n In International News\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukraine will not be attending upcoming US-Russia peace talks in Saudi Arabia, with European leaders also excluded. The continent\u2019s most powerful leaders will gather for a crisis summit in Paris to discuss how to safeguard the future of European defence in the event of US disengagement, and how best to support Ukraine\u2019s position. This also comes after JD Vance, US Vice-President, has recently accused European democracies of stifling freedom of speech and religion, criticising the UK\u2019s conviction of Christian Adam Smith-Connor for breaching a safe zone around an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. This reflects the fractures in relations between the US and Europe, and there is increasing uncertainty over what role the US will play in future European security. Former prime minister of the UK, John Major, has warned that global democracy is under threat if the US withdraws from its leading role in the world, and that American \u2018isolationism\u2019 risks emboldening Russia and China to step into the vacuum. Crucially, any peace deal concluded without Ukraine\u2019s involvement risks undermining the country\u2019s sovereignty and right to self-determination, which are foundational principles of international law. Without Ukrainian or European presence at the talks, it is also unclear what stance will be taken regarding justice and accountability for human rights violations that are alleged against Russia during the war. Whatever the outcome of the upcoming talks, the balance of the international order appears to be at stake.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the Courts\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Joseph El-Khouri against his extradition to the US to answer crimes of alleged insider trading. The decision clarified the definition of an \u2018extradition offence\u2019 and the operation of the \u2018double criminality\u2019 rule under s.137 of the Extradition Act 2003. This rule provides that the relevant conduct must constitute a crime in both the UK and the requesting country. Section 137 provides separate tests giving effect to the principle, depending on whether the acts took place in <\/em>the requesting state\u2019s territory (s.137(3)) or outside <\/em>of it (s.137(4)). The Supreme Court rejected the USA\u2019s arguments that, because the effects of Mr El-Khouri\u2019s conduct were likely to be felt on US markets, they occurred \u2018in\u2019 the US . Departing from Office of the King\u2019s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas<\/em>\u00a0[2006] 2 AC 1, the court held that the conduct occurred in the territory where the physical acts took place, not where their effects were felt. The court held that the statutory test for an extraditable offence was unworkable unless there was a clear distinction between offences taking place \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018outside\u2019 the requesting territory. The definition of conduct occurring \u2018in\u2019 the requesting territory had been too wide in Cando Armas<\/em>, and this decision has labelled Lord Hope\u2019s obiter comments in that case in particular as \u2018mistaken\u2019. In the present case, because almost all the relevant acts occurred in the UK and not in the US, Mr El-Khouri\u2019s conduct had been wrongly classified as subject to the s.137(3) test. Although insider dealing was an offence under both US and UK criminal law, he could not be extradited because there was no provision of UK law which would have permitted a prosecution in equivalent circumstances of an individual in the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ukhumanrightsblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/europe-map-1290868_1280.jpg?resize=1024%2C686&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/figure>\nLike this:<\/h3>\n