From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed May 21 09:36:50 2025 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Interesting citizenship Q. References: <1009q0k$bqfu$2@dont-email.me> <100a5e2$dcon$2@dont-email.me> <100d3do$1au6$1@gal.iecc.com> <100d4i9$fl49$4@dont-email.me> <100f5vc$1jmmf$2@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [174781630327684] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 09:36:48 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed May 21 09:31:43 2025 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=z4a+W9afjVzWl8yMqm2aaGDjs99fCe/37ohQbpGTawA=; t=1747816301; x=1748421101; b=ebg+huSEK0CoTnq > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Interesting citizenship Q. > Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 09:31:38 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: <1009q0k$bqfu$2@dont-email.me> > <100a5e2$dcon$2@dont-email.me> > <100d3do$1au6$1@gal.iecc.com> <100d4i9$fl49$4@dont-email.me> > <100f5vc$1jmmf$2@dont-email.me> > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net BF6nKDSaSMIgS0gTL33qgQA8kIpgCXoh7sz01qZ0KZtxit5M5l > Cancel-Lock: sha1:dppxpaDzALHBlhTcTuzyKhQYqm8= sha256:dksSlfwJqcvxfm7doLlCvPQCaMfrQjmSsOYEkHXFwNI= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 29 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 21/05/2025 09:19, Simon Parker wrote: > > On 20/05/2025 09:32, Norman Wells wrote: > >> On 20/05/2025 08:01, Simon Parker wrote: > >>> On 19/05/2025 15:25, Norman Wells wrote: > > > >>>> Even better, you can get the answer directly from the Bangladesh > >>>> Citizenship Act itself. > >>> > >>> A judgment from the Court of Appeal is binding on lower courts. > >>> > >>> Whereas interpretation of a foreign piece of legislation requires > >>> expert evidence to be adduced, as happened in Ms Begum's original > >>> case before SIAC. > >>> > >>> It is not a case of simply saying to the Court, "The Bangladesh > >>> Citizenship Act says..." and that is all there is to deciding the > >>> matter. > >> > >> It's written in English.  The English is absolutely clear.  There is > >> no ambiguity.  What it says goes.  There is nothing that requires or > >> would be helped by expert evidence. > > > > Thank you for providing the latest example proving you do not have the > > first clue about the intricacies of legal matters. > > > > Pleading and proving foreign law in the courts of England and Wales is a > > complex subject so you would be excused for not understanding it. > > However, boldly stating as fact something which is clearly erroneous > > merely exposes your ignorance. > > > > Tell me, does your statement above take account of the Supreme Court's > > decision in FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Lady Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45?  A > > simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. > > > > Putting it into the simplest terms in which I believe it is possible to > > express it: foreign law is a matter of fact, not of law. > > > > More specifically, English courts have long regarded foreign law not as > > a type of law at all ([^1]) but as a matter of fact, albeit a "special" > > fact ([^2]), except for EU law, treaties and instruments which must be > > treated as a question of law [^3]. > > > > In an adversarial system it is for the parties to determine the factual > > issues to be decided.  This includes questions of the content and > > application of foreign law. > > > > This next sentence is very important, and I ask that you pay more than > > the usual attention to it: > > > > Even if it is obvious from the evidence before it, an English court will > > not (and cannot!) ascertain or apply a foreign law of its own motion. > > (With a notable exception where the law is that of a Commonwealth > > country, where under the British Law Ascertainment Act 1859 the court > > may, exceptionally, order the ascertainment of the law under its own > > motion.) > > > > As a result, the applicability of a foreign law must be pleaded AND > > SUBSTANTIATED. [^4] (emphasis mine) > > > > If a party does not plead any particular rules of the foreign law, they > > may find that they cannot adduce any evidence of particular rules later > > without amendment to their statement of case, which itself will be > > governed by the usual principles relating to late amendment. [^5] > > > > As a question of fact, a party must prove their case on foreign law. [^6]. > > > > In all cases, the tribunal to whom the party relying on foreign law must > > prove the content of the foreign law is the judge alone (^7).  This is > > true even in trials by jury, whether in civil court or in the criminal > > court on indictment [^8]. > > > > As with all factual matters, a party can admit, formally or informally, > > the accuracy of foreign laws [^9].  The usual rules on admission will > > apply in this context, and so a party must be careful to respond to a > > pleaded case on foreign law if they wish to contest its accuracy, or > > else be faced with a deemed admission under CPR 16.5(5) [^10]. > > Similarly, once such an admission is made it can only be withdrawn with > > the permission of the court in accordance with CPR 14. > > > > A similar principle is that the parties may together agree that the > > court can determine a point of foreign law without evidence, but the > > court itself must be content to take such a course [^11]. > > > > Unsurprisingly, (to everyone familiar with the process which clearly > > excludes you!), the most common way by which a foreign law is proved is > > by evidence.  It is a longstanding common law rule that such evidence is > > of opinion, and therefore must be proved by the evidence of a > > sufficiently qualified expert [^12]. > > > > Are you a "sufficiently qualified expert" on foreign law, Norman, > > specifically that of Bangladesh?  Do tell! > > > > As with other experts, foreign law experts will usually give their > > evidence in the form of an expert report in accordance with CPR 35, > > followed by oral evidence and cross-examination at trial. > > > > A party may adduce evidence from a suitably qualified person which does > > not fall within CPR 35 (for example a report made for purposes other > > than for proceedings [^13].  However, the court is unlikely to place any > > great weight on this evidence where it is contested and forms a > > significant part of the dispute and may well exercise a power to exclude > > it under CPR 32.1 > > > > As with all experts in English proceedings, the role of an expert on > > foreign law is to assist the court in determining the content of foreign > > law, but not to opine on its application to the case. > > > > An expert's report should: > > > > (1) Identify the relevant rules and principles of foreign law, included > > statutes or other legislation (in a properly translated form); > > > > (2) Identify any relevant judgments interpreting or explaining those > > rules and the status of judicial decisions (as well as any local > > customs, practices or religions which may be relevant; [^14] and > > > > (3) Where there is no direct authority, offer their opinion as to how a > > foreign court would determine the question. > > > > Where the foreign law in question is a statute or other general law, the > > expert should give their opinion on what the statute means and its > > effect in the foreign system [^15]. > > > > As part of their report, an expert should identify and provide copies of > > relevant statutes, textbooks, judicial decisions or other sources of law > > they rely on or consider relevant.  They should also make clear which > > parts of the source they regard as current and / or correct as the court > > cannot itself do research into the validity of the sources [^16] > > > > In light of the foregoing, do you consider the statements "It's written > > in English.  The English is absolutely clear.  There is no ambiguity. > > What it says goes." sufficient or would you like to amend your pleading? > > > > > >>> A judgment is therefore of greater evidential value and your claim > >>> that a piece of foreign legislation is "even better" is absolute > >>> nonsense. > >>> > >>> In short: You are mistaken. > >> > >> Not so.  The Bangladesh Citizenship Act is definitive.  Courts can be > >> sloppy, careless and mistaken. > >> > >> Source materials are always better than some second-hand summary. > > > > I can but repeat: You are mistaken.  And if you wish to dispute this, I > > draw to your attention the sixteen references below and request that you > > evidence any statements you make by way of reply to a similar standard. > > > > Regards > > > > S.P. > > > > [^1] Castrique v Imrie (1869-70) LR 4 HL 414, at page 430 > > [^2] King v Brandwine Reinsurance Co (UK) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 235, at [67] > > [^3] European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, Schedule 5, section 15(2), > > paragraph (3) > > [^4] See FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Lady Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45, at > > [116]-[117] > > [^5] Brownlie, at [166] > > [^6] Bumper Development Corp v Metropolitan Police Commission [1991] 1 > > WLR 1362, at page 1368 > > [^7] Senior Courts Act 1981 section 69(5) and County Courts Act 1984 > > section 68 > > [^8] R v Hammer [1923] 2 KB 786 > > [^9] Moulis v Owen [1907] 1 KB 746 > > [^10] Prowse v European and American Steam Shipping Co (1860) 13 Moo PC > > 484) > > [^11] Beatty v Beatty [1924] 1 KB 807 > > [^12] Earl Nelson v Lord Bridport (1845) 8 Beav 527, at page 536 > > [^13] Rogers v Hoyle [2015] QB 265, Leggatt J at [120] > > [^14] Such as Sharia principles in Harley v Smith [2009] EWHC 56 (QB), > > at [51] > > [^15] Santander v Tatta [2016] 4 WLR 49, at [237(7)] > > [^16] Bumper Development, at pages 1369-1371 > > And yet, the answer arrived at by the courts after, it seems, endless > 'procedure' and doubtless cost, is exactly what I said it was after > simply reading the Act. > > It's all that was necessary. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmgtkKAACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x6uBggAwx96f3L/QiW+u9pU0W+pNdcypASGrbSfEZdC7Sgwtke3RQ1e5RLrZR7o 8Tj++SJSsTTBt9NV0cUcbCZuEazoqktzKdKBxZoI2s0vZhd5suVGel6ZwUfRCioW 6iGMS3h3R0vJZhbsrYlEft0ffdF8++k/f2GS8/0QhP1FJMTJpFm9ML8Gvkd3TIRP O2d4lAne6dhv/X115uEz8HXC26VX9+owc1E7DuaFId1+SRw+z7rgNEx87KnrOIQX aZAYnyTO2t6sn2qBVcG1cYBE4tc4JudpF1NDju1tJScnTa3MuZTTPQJS6uLrmvuO pWgVXQxbrV5SvUn/qbfVsrsBY3hJtw== =VtiI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----