Radical reforms to Britain’s immigration system, restoring control to her borders and reducing record-high levels of net migration have been set out by the Labour government.

Measures unveiled in the immigration white paper published (Monday 12 May) will reshape the immigration system towards those who contribute most to economic growth, with higher skills standards for graduates and workers.

New requirements on employers to boost domestic training will end the reliance on international recruitment, restoring order to a failed system that saw net migration quadruple between 2019 and 2023.

Key policies in the 82 page blueprint, titled Restoring Control over the Immigration System, include the following:

* reversing the long-term trend of increasing international recruitment at the expense of skills and training

* the labour market evidence group will be established, drawing on the best data available in order to make informed decisions about the state of the labour market and the role that different policies should play, rather than always relying on migration

* departments across government will engage sector bodies as part of this approach

Raising Skilled Worker threshold – skilled must mean skilled

Lifting the level for skilled workers back to RQF 6 (Graduate level) and above. Salary thresholds will rise.

The immigration salary list, which gives people discounts from salary thresholds, will be abolished.

Access to the points-based immigration system will be limited to occupations where there have been long term shortages, on a time limited basis, where the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has advised it is justified, where there is a workforce strategy in place, and where employers seeking to recruit from abroad are committed to playing their part in increasing recruitment from the domestic workforce.

Adult Social Care

Ending overseas recruitment for social care visas. In line with the wider reforms to skills thresholds, all new applications for social care visas from abroad will close.

For a transition period until 2028, while the workforce strategy is being developed and rolled out, there will be permission for visa extensions and in-country switching for those already here. It will be kept under review.

Study

The government promises to strengthen the requirements that all sponsoring institutions must meet in order to recruit international students.

The government will introduce new interventions for sponsors who are close to failing their sponsor duties, including placing them on an action plan designed to improve their compliance, and imposing limits on the number of new international students they can recruit while they are subject to those plans.

The government will reduce the ability for graduates to remain in the UK after their studies to a period of 18 months.

Family

The government has promised to tackle the over complex family and private life immigration arrangements, where too many cases are treated as ‘exceptional’ rather than having a clear framework.

The government has announced to bring legislation forward to make clear it is the government and Parliament that decides who should have the right to remain in the UK simply to address cases where Article 8 right to family life legal arguments are being used to frustrate deportation where removal is clearly in the public interest.

Growth

The UK government has promised further measures in ensuring that the very highly skilled have opportunities to come to the UK and access the targeted routes for the brightest and best global talent.

This includes increasing the number of people arriving the UK on the very high talent routes, alongside faster routes for bringing people to the UK who have the right skills and experience to supercharge UK growth in strategic industries.

This includes increasing places to the scheme for research interns, making it easier for top scientific and design talent to use the Global Talent visa, and reviewing the Innovator Founder visa and High Potential Individual route to maximise their benefit to the UK economy.

Tackling Abuse

New policies will apply to individuals who claim asylum where conditions in their home country have not materially changed, particularly where they have claimed asylum after arrival.

Tighter visa controls, restrictions, requirements or scrutiny will be applied where there is evidence of abuse, based on a clear assessment of the risks.

Measures to ensure that other governments play their part in supporting the integrity of the UK immigration system – particularly where there are currently barriers in the way of the UK’s immigration returning their nationals.

Innovative financial measures, penalties or sanctions, including for sponsors of migrant workers or students where there is evidence of abuse. These will incentivise them to act responsibly, with new measures to support compliance with visa conditions by migrants.

Foreign National Offenders (FNOs)

The government is reforming the deportation system to ensure the Home Office is informed of all foreign nationals convicted of offences – not just those who go to prison.

It is also reviewing deportation thresholds to take into account a wider range of factors than just the length of sentence, and start by revising the statutory exceptions criteria to ensure that the deportation test reflects the seriousness of violence against women and girls.

English language

The government will Introduce new English language requirements across a broader range of immigration routes, for both main applicants and their dependants, to ensure a better knowledge of English, including an assessment of improvements over time.

Earned settlement and citizenship

The reform will see the doubling of the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years.

Expanding the points-based system to both the settlement and citizenship rules, so they are based on contribution to the UK, with further details to be set out to Parliament by the end of the year.

The policies outlined, part of the government’s Plan for Change, will be delivered over the course of this Parliament to strengthen the UK’s immigration system, with the first changes set to be introduced in the coming weeks.

The government will publish further reforms to the asylum system and border security later this summer, building on measures in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill currently progressing through Parliament.

Dr George Ogunjimi

Juris Republic
jurisrepubliclegal@gmail.com
12/05/2025

Subliminal evidence suggests that trust is in decline among couples and the majority of men in regards to paternity because of wayward lifestyles that are in vogue.

This has resulted in the increasing number of DNA being carried out by men either in conjunction with their partners or secretly by themselves without notification to their partners.

Basically, as at today, the position of the law on the determination of PATERNITY in Nigeria iis the judgement by the COURT OF APPEAL, of Mbaba, JCA in the case of TONY ANOZIA V. MRS. PATRICIA OKWUNWA NNANI & IGNATIUS “NNANI” (2015) 8 NWLR (PT. 1461) 241.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case which is otherwise known as ANOZIA V. NNANI are that the Appellant filed a suit against a married woman (the 1st Respondent) and her son (the 2nd Respondent) seeking for a declaration of the paternity of the 2nd Respondent.

His case was that he had sexual intercourse with the 1st Respondent sometime in 1957, at a time when the 1st Respondent’s husband was terminally ill and incapable of performing sexual acts.

The Respondents denied the claims.

While the matter was yet to be tried, the Appellant filed an application seeking for an order of court referring parties for a DNA test.

The trial court refused the application on the ground that granting same would amount to allowing the Appellant to use the interlocutory application to realise the relief he sought in the main suit.

The Appellant’s appeal was unanimously dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

In the said case which went to the SUPREME COURT in Appeal No. SC201/2015, the Court of Appeal made judicial pronouncements on some issues, FIVE (5) pf which are most relevant to this discourse.

PRONOUNCEMENT 1
ON THE MEANING OF DNA:

“DNA, that is, “deoxyribonucleic acid” is a molecule that contains the genetic code of any organism. It is hereditary and has become an euphemism for scientific analysis of genetic constitution to determine one’s roots.” (Page 256, Paragraph H)

PRONOUNCEMENT 2
ON WHEN THE COURT CAN ORDER DNA TEST:

“Where a person is a minor (not mature adult) and his paternity is in issue, the court can order the conduct of DNA test in the overall interest of the child, to ascertain where he belongs.

“However, this is not the situation in the instant case where the appellant had a duty to establish his claim on the 2nd respondent, independently, and to produce such evidence to the court. Of course, if he elected to use DNA test to establish his claim, it was up to the appellant to go for it on his own, and/or woo the respondents to do so, without a resort to the coercive powers of the court, to compel his adversary to supply him with the possible evidence he needed to prove his case.” (Page 257, Paragraphs B-C)

“Per MBABA, JCA at Pages 256-257, Paragraphs H-A:
I doubt whether that form of proof can be ordered or is necessary to determine the paternity of a 57 years old man, who does not complain about his parenthood, just to please or indulge a self acclaimed predator, who emerges to distabilize family bonds and poses as a biological father!

“I think it is only the 2nd respondent (a mature adult) that can waive his rights and/or seek to compel his parents (or those laying claim to him) to submit to DNA test to prove his root.”

PRONOUNCEMENT 3
ON WHETHER AN ADULT CAN BE COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO DNA TEST:

“A court cannot order an unwilling adult or senior citizen to submit to DNA test, in defiance of his fundamental rights to privacy for the purpose of extracting scientific evidence to assist the appellant in the instant case to confirm or disprove his wish that the 2nd respondent – a 57 year old man – is his child, of an illicit amorous relationship!

“I think appellant’s claim at the court below, founded on an obscene and reprehensible immoral foundation, was a scandal and blackmail, which a sound lawyer would be ashamed to associate with.” (Page 254, Paragraphs F-H)

PRONOUNCEMENT 4
ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE PATERNITY OF A CHILD:

“If a party is claiming paternity, a court of law should be allowed to determine same on proof of evidence relating to paternity, which could only be done by referral for a DNA test of the parties involved. After such test, the court has a duty to declare the actual father of the child in dispute in consonance with evidence at its disposal.” [OLAYINKA V. ADEPARUSI (2011) LPELR 2697 referred to.] (Page 256, Paragrahs F-G).

PRONOUNCEMENT 5
ON PRESUMPTION IN RESPECT OF A CHILD BORN WITHIN WEDLOCK:

“A woman has the right to say who the father of her child is, and of course, where a child is born within wedlock, the PRESUMPTION is conclusive that the child is the seed or product of the marriage.” (Page 256, Paragraphs C-D)

PRESUMPTIONS

A PRESUMPTION is an assumption that is made in law that will stand as a fact unless someone comes forward to contest it and REBUTS (disproves) it with clear and convincing evidence.

A REBUTTABLE presumption is an assumption of fact accepted by the court until rebutted (disproved).

Generally, all presumptions can be regarded as REBUTTABLE, and the PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY is no exception.

The presumption of paternity is rebuttable on the presentation of clear and irrefutable evidence to the contrary, as clearly stated by the Court of Appeal in the PRONOUNCEMENT 2.

CONCLUSION

In a nutshell, the CURRENT position of Nigerian Law is that when a MARRIED woman gives birth to a CHILD, her HUSBAND is 100% PRESUMED to be the father of the child.

And where the PATERNITY of the said CHILD is in contention, upon the application of one of the parties, the court CAN and SHOLUD order a DNA test to be conducted to determine the TRUE father of the CHILD.

Conversely, an ADULT is 100% PRESUMED to know his or her TRUE father, unless, they are in doubt themselves.
And where the PATERNITY of the said ADULT is in contention, except the ADULT surrenders himself for a DNA test, upon the application of one of the parties, the court CANNOT and SHOULD NOT order a DNA test to be conducted to determine the father of the ADULT.

Dr George Ogunjimi
Juris Republic
jurisrepubliclegal@gmail.com
12/01/2025.

The charges against the trio named above aftermath the Ibadan stampede must have gotten many lawyers worked up and worried on some imbalances noted on the writ.

Murder.

Subject to three exceptions (which constitute partial defences to murder, and result in a conviction for manslaughter) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

of sound mind and discretion (sane)

unlawfully kills (not self-defence or other justified killing)

any reasonable creature (a human being)

in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs)

In Peace time (not in wartime)

with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice)

Intent is an ordinary English word. It should not normally be elaborated on or paraphrased. It is different from motive and the prosecution does not have to prove motive, or that grievous bodily harm or death were the outcome wished for.

The suspect’s act must be a substantial cause of the death, not necessarily the sole or principal cause.

Self-defence is as much a defence to murder and manslaughter as to any other offence.

Assessing whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction includes an objective assessment of the evidence including the likelihood of this defence being raised and of the prosecution disproving it to the criminal standard.

Duress is not available as a defence to murder or attempted murder.

A count of murder on an indictment should refer to the date of death, not the date of the act that caused the death.

Manslaughter

Manslaughter is primarily committed in one of three ways:

Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.

Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill (“gross negligence manslaughter”); and

Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death (“unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter”).

The term “voluntary manslaughter” is commonly used to describe manslaughter falling within (1) while (2) and (3) are referred to as “involuntary manslaughter”.

Voluntary manslaughter and partial defences to murder

Where all of the elements to prove murder are present, including an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, a partial defence may be raised in three circumstances. Unlike a complete defence such as self-defence, these operate to reduce guilt for murder to guilt for manslaughter.

They are: diminished responsibility, loss of control and killing in pursuance of a suicide pact.

Diminished Responsibility:

The defendant must prove the following four elements:

the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning

if so, whether it had arisen from a recognised medical condition

if so, whether it had substantially impaired the defendant’s ability either to understand the nature of their conduct or to form a rational judgment or to exercise self-control (or any combination)

if so, whether it provided an explanation for their conduct.

As the onus is on the defendant to establish diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities, they are likely to need to obtain expert evidence in support.

The prosecution will then review the case. In some cases it may not be necessary to obtain evidence from a further expert, because the defence expert evidence (on paper, or when challenged in cross-examination) is unlikely to substantiate the defence. More usually, the prosecution will need to obtain evidence from a further expert.

As part of the ongoing duty of review, the prosecution will further review the case. In doing so, it should be borne in mind that the judge is not bound to accept medical evidence and that the evidence, especially when tested through cross-examination, may not meet the elements of diminished responsibility.

The judge must consider whether the defence of diminished responsibility should go before the court.

First, however, a prosecutor will review the case and make clear to the court and the defence whether it is the prosecution view that there is a realistic prospect of conviction for murder or not.

If there is no realistic prospect of conviction, especially if the evidence is unequivocal and uncontradicted and has plainly met each element for diminished responsibility, then a plea of manslaughter should be accepted.

If there remains a realistic prospect of conviction, in the course of that review the prosecution should establish whether in its view there is or is not sufficient evidence to go before the court for the partial defence, and make submissions accordingly, inviting the judge to withdraw the defence in appropriate cases.

Voluntary acute behaviour cannot found diminished responsibility: R v Dowds (Stephen Andrew) [2012] EWCA Crim 281, an English case it was decided that in cases where a defendant who suffered from a mental abnormality was also intoxicated, the correct approach is for the judge and jury to ignore the effects of intoxication and to ask whether the defendant’s other condition(s) of mental abnormality substantially impaired their responsibility for the killing – R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10. See also: R v Joyce Kay (2017) EWCA Crim 647 and R v Wood [2008] EWCA Crim 1305.

Loss of control (the first component);

A qualifying trigger (the second component); and

An objective test (the third component): A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.

The trial judge should consider the three components sequentially. If sufficient evidence is adduced to raise this defence, on which in the opinion of the trial judge a jury, properly directed, could reasonably apply, then the prosecution must disprove loss of control beyond reasonable doubt. For the relevant law and jury directions for loss of control, see the Judicial College’s Crown Court Compendium, Part I, at 19-3.

For examples of where insufficient evidence of loss of control was raised, in respect of one or more of the elements required, and so the issue was not left to the jury, see R v Gurpinar (Mustafa) [2015] EWCA Crim 178, R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer [2013] EWCA Crim 322, and R v Christian [2018] EWCA Crim 1344.

Self-induced bad behaviour or intoxication is to be disregarded for the purposes of this partial defence.

However, if a sober person in the defendant’s circumstances, with normal levels of tolerance and self-restraint, might have behaved in the same way as the defendant, the defendant will not be deprived of the loss of control defence simply because they were intoxicated.

Different considerations would arise if a defendant had a severe problem with alcohol or drugs and was mercilessly taunted about the condition, to the extent that it constituted a qualifying trigger: the alcohol or drug problem would then form part of the circumstances for consideration: R v Asmelash (Dawit) [2013] EWCA Crim 157.

The prosecution should invite the judge to withdraw the loss of control defence from the jury where there is insufficient evidence on any one of the three elements to allow the defence to be put before the court.

Suicide Pact

A person, acting in pursuance of a suicide pact between themselves and another, who kills the other or is a party to the other being killed by a third person, is guilty of manslaughter and not murder (section 4 of the Homicide Act 1957).

The defendant must satisfy the jury on the balance of probabilities that there was a suicide pact in existence, and if so, that the defendant at the time of the killing was acting in pursuance of it and had a settled intention of dying in pursuance of it.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Where an unlawful killing is done without an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, the suspect is to be charged with manslaughter not murder. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.

There are primarily two types of involuntary manslaughter, that caused by an unlawful or dangerous act and that caused by gross negligence.

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

The prosecution must prove an intentional act (not omission); that the intentional act is unlawful; that it is an act which all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the victim to at least some risk of harm.

Gross negligence manslaughter

The elements of this offence are “the breach of an existing duty of care which it is reasonably foreseeable gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death and does, in fact, cause death in circumstances where, having regard to the risk of death, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act”

A partial defence to murder is in issue; or

Intention short of an intent to cause grievous bodily harm is in issue.

At the outset of a case, or at a later stage pre-trial, it may be apparent that the defendant’s defence means that they are guilty at the least of manslaughter. An indictment may be preferred to allow the defendant to enter a plea to this offence, which may be acceptable to the prosecution, or if not, will ensure the issues for the judge are narrowed and a guilty plea is recorded in the event of acquittal for murder.

If a defendant pleads not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter without that appearing as a count on the indictment, that plea is a nullity if the prosecution does not accept it.

The defendant cannot be sentenced for it in the event of acquittal on the count of murder.

At trial, if a plea of manslaughter would not be acceptable, this alternative count need not appear on the indictment for the court.

The exception would be where the prosecution concludes there is a real (rather than a fanciful) prospect of the judge finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter, and if the judge was not sure of the defendant’s guilt on the charge of murder, the prosecution, after a trial for murder, would accept a guilty verdict on the charge of manslaughter i.e. not seek a re-trial for murder.

The addition of an alternative count in these circumstances is therefore simply an indication about the prosecution position should the judge not convict of murder. The case of Njoku Vs The State 2012 suffices.

The following are the consequences of adding or not adding an alternative of manslaughter when proceeding on the charge of murder:

If the judge cannot reach a verdict on the murder count, but return a guilty verdict on the manslaughter count which has been added as an alternative, the prosecution will not usually seek a re-trial on the count of murder.

If no alternative is included on the indictment, the prosecution must decide when the jury retires to consider their verdict on murder whether to seek a re-trial if the jury cannot agree, or whether it would be prepared to accept the alternative (manslaughter).

If the prosecution submits that the judge should accept the verdict of manslaughter, then it will be accepting that it will not be proceeding to a retrial on the charge of murder.

If the prosecution submits that the judge should not accept the verdict of manslaughter, and therefore seeks a retrial on the charge of murder, the judge may agree to accede to this, discharge the court and order a retrial on the charge of murder.

If, despite representations to the contrary, the judge accepts the verdict of manslaughter because it meets the justice of the case, the prosecution will not be able to seek a retrial on the charge of murder even if there is no abuse of process: see Iheanyighichi Apugo v The State.

The trio of Hamzat, Fasasi and Naomi are facing charges of murders for organising a charity event for the less privileged and many parents and adults were allegedly involved in crushing to death tens and tens of toddlers and youngsters.

Where are those directly involved in the accident and why are they not charged along with the event organisers?

Dr George Ogunjimi

Juris Republic

jurisrepublclegal@gmail.com

08118875482

02/01/2025.