‘Error’ cited in Sroubek reversal
Immigration Minister Iain LeesGalloway has confirmed an error was made in granting Karel Sroubek residency and it is this technical aspect that the deportation liability now hinges on.
But this may prove troublesome for the embattled minister because it raises more questions about what he might have missed in his first review of the file, and if this was the reason then that is why the convicted drug smuggler’s lawyer is now considering asking for a judicial review.
In the House on Thursday, LeesGalloway couldn’t quite bring himself to say he had made a mistake, relying on Winston Peters to confirm it for the Opposition during Question Time.
This week he said his U-turn on granting residency was the result of new information but he did not cite what part of the Immigration Act he used to come to that conclusion.
Immigration NZ has now confirmed the minister determined Sroubek was now liable for deportation under section 155 of the Immigration Act: Deportation liability if a person’s visa is granted in error.
This section of the act states that a person is liable for deportation if the minister or an immigration officer determines that the person’s visa was granted as a result of an administrative error.
It also includes the minister or an immigration officer determining that the person is an excluded person.
When asked about section 155, Lees-Galloway said: ‘‘Technically it was an error that Sroubek was originally issued a temporary visa and then a residency visa following that.
‘‘Those were errors in the language of the act and those meant he should never have been issued a visa in the first place.’’
So the question remains, if this section of the act was overlooked when the minister made his initial decision, does that constitute ‘‘new information’’?
Legal experts say this is uncharted territory and that is likely something being looked at by Sroubek’s legal representative, who is planning to appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal.
Yesterday, lawyer Paul Wicks confirmed a judicial review was now something that was being considered but he would not go into detail about the grounds.
When announcing his decision this week, Lees-Galloway said the Immigration Act set a minimum statutory bar and Sroubek’s convictions rendered him an excluded person.
The new Interpol information, among other things, included that Sroubek was present when he was convicted in the Czech Republic and appealed that to the highest court in that country and then fled after that appeal was successful, LeesGalloway said.
‘‘That was certainly a very different picture that was painted in the original file.’’
But documents released under the Official Information Act show the minister would already have had access to much of that information and he disagreed there could be a double jeopardy-type challenge.
If the Czech conviction was valid as the minister now says, then someone may have overlooked section 155 of the act in the first instance. To reverse his decision Lees-Galloway had to show (using the act) that information provided by the applicant was somehow misleading, deliberately incomplete or perhaps criminal – and not just because he wasn’t given information.