This case shows that Habitual Residency is not just an issue as to where someone is living. I think the court decision is in fact wrong as the links to the UK had been cut. However, I am aware of cases where people have left the UK, but continue to claim benefits in the UK. That would mean that they are inherently habitually resident in the UK. To change habitual residence is more than just flying out.
The link is in Russian about the imprisonment of Norman Scarth who is actually 85. He has a complex history including a court hearing which found that he used a chainsaw to fight off bailiffs when he was 75. [a court judgment which is disputed see comments] However, that does not justify imprisoning him for 6 months for recording a court hearing (see the link and ask google to translate it if your Russian is not up to it).
It has got into the Argyll News
Because he has been held such that people cannot get to him to sign paperwork an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made today. This has been adjourned until next week.
The English judicial system is really not good at responding to major abuses of human rights by the judicial system.
Comments