Catflap Latest: Sack Theresa May!

Good god, #Catflap shows no sign of abating. And people are losing their minds over it. Poor old Tim Montgomerie is the latest fellow to see the rumpus as an excuse to get rid of Ken Clarke. Apparently a "Cabinet minister should never publicly attack a colleague" and so Ken must be sacked as soon as possible. Personally, I'd rather Cabinet Ministers ceased behaving like idiots and since May is the idiot in this case, if a head must roll it should be the Home Secretary's. She started the Catflap after all and only in the topsy-turvy political land could Ken carry the can for telling the truth while May escapes without censure despite wilfully (or, if you prefer, carelessly) misleading the public.

And what is Ken's crime? Pointing out that May's criticisms of the Human Rights Act were "laughable and childlike". Since this is palpably true you might wonder what the fuss is. Then you recall that some people want to get rid of Ken - who, whatever you may think of him is a more substantial figure than most other cabinet ministers - and therefore this nonsense becomes a useful nonsense and never mind that trying to exploit it so obviously makes you seem a miserable-though-opportunistic poltroon. Sorry Tim, but your willingness to ignore the accuracy of May's remarks should be unworthy of you.

And May was wrong to mock the judiciary for allegedly refusing a Home Office deportation request on the grounds that the student concerned (who applied to remain in the UK) had a cat and each party to that relationship would be most upset were they to be parted by some heartless government bureaucrat. Or the law. Over to Barry O'Leary, who represented the immigrant in question:

The case referred to was not decided on the basis of ownership of a cat. It was decided on the basis of a Home Office policy which the Home Office themselves had failed to apply. This was accepted by the Home Office before the Immigration Judge. The Home Office agreed the appeal should be allowed. The ownership of a cat was immaterial to the final decision made. Any press reports to the contrary are not based on fact.

The case involved a foreign national in a long term committed relationship with a British Citizen. They had been living together for four years at the time of the appeal. He was not a foreign national prisoner nor had he been charged with or convicted of any offence.

I had made an application on the foreign national's behalf for the right to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a Home Office policy known as DP3/96. DP3/96 was a Home Office policy which stated that individuals who had been in a relationship with a settled person for in excess of two years, and no immigration enforcement action had been take against them, could be granted exceptional leave. The policy has now been withdrawn.

The application was refused and my client appealed against that decision. I stress that it was not argued at any point by this firm, nor by my client, that he would 'suffer from being separated from his cat' nor that 'the pet's quality of life would be affected.' Our arguments were based on the long-term committed nature of the couple's relationship. Their ownership of a cat was just one detail amongst many given to demonstrate the genuine nature of their relationship.

OK? But, look, there be more:

It was, in fact, the official acting on behalf of the Home Secretary who, when writing the letter of refusal, stated that the cat could relocate to Bolivia and cope with the quality of life there. This statement was not in response to any argument put forward by this firm or my client (and was, frankly, rather mischievous on behalf of the official).

The appeal against the refusal was successful and, when giving judgment, because the reasons for refusal did refer to the cat the judge commented on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. However, it was not the reason for allowing the appeal. The appeal was allowed because of the couple's relationship, and the also judge relied on the Home Office policy that had not been applied.

The Home Secretary asked for the decision to be reconsidered, stating that the Home Office policy should not be relied on and there was too much reliance on the cat. The Home Secretary was given permission to put the arguments to the tribunal and the decision of the tribunal is that of SIJ Gleeson.

It was decided by Immigration Judge Gleeson that the first judge's decision should stand. As is clear from the determination, she came to this decision because the Home Secretary, in refusing the application, had not applied their own policy DP3/96 (which had been withdrawn but the transitional provisions of which should have been applied to my client). It was made clear by the initial judge and then by Immigration Judge Gleeson that the Appellant should benefit from that policy and be granted the right to remain.

Furthermore, it was accepted by the Home Office representative at the hearing before Immigration Judge Gleeson that the policy should apply and any errors in the initial decision by the judge (including too much detail on the cat) were immaterial.

See paragraph 6 of the determination. It makes clear that it is the former policy DP3/96 which is the basis on which the appeal was won.

SIJ Gleeson did go on to make a joke about the cat, clearly because she recognized that the discussion of the cat was irrelevant to the serious issue of applying Home Office policies correctly. This case was won because the Home Office had a policy which they did not initially apply but later, through their representative, they accepted should have been applied.

In other words, the whole affair arises as a result of Home Office incompetence. Naturally, then, the minister responsible for the Home Office should be in the clear and enjoy Downing Street's support.

No, I don't really think Theresa May should be sacked for this sillyness but the case for sacking her is much stronger than the case for sacking Ken Clarke since the latter relies upon some curious, newly-discovered convention that when Cabinet Ministers make fools of themselves their colleagues should never, ever point this out and must instead pretend the fools were right all along. Common sense and perspective be damned!

For that matter, one might also ask what useful purpose is served by immigration cases of this kind. That's a rather more important issue than Catflap but not something you should expect the press to be much interested in.