He has been one of the UK’s favourite and most prominent refugees for two-thirds of a century. Now Paddington Bear – official name Paddington Brown – has been granted a British passport.
The co-producer of the latest Paddington film said the Home Office had issued the specimen document to the fictional Peruvian-born character – listing for completeness the official observation that he is, in fact, a bear.
Aw, innit cute?
Ten years ago, as the first Paddington film was due for release, I quoted Free Movement blog:
Paddington stows away and deliberately avoids the immigration authorities on arrival. He is in formal legal terms an illegal entrant and as such commits a criminal offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. It is an offence punishable by up to six months in prison. If or when detected by the authorities it is more likely he would simply be removed back to Peru than that he would be prosecuted, though. To avoid that fate he would need to make out a legal basis to stay.
Incidentally, for offering a home to Paddington - or harbouring him, as the Home Office would have it - Mr and Mrs Brown could potentially face prosecution under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, entitled "Assisting unlawful immigration to member State". The maximum sentence is 14 years.
Whatever Paddington's status now, he didn't have a British passport when he arrived in 2014. So I stand by my reaction then:
"Crikey!" said Jonathan.
5 comments:
In fact Paddington arrived in the UK in or before October 1958. I'm not sure what his immigration status would have been then, but if the Home Office sought to deport him now I expect the public reaction would make the Windrush scandal (where peole only arrived a little earlier) look like a picnic in Hyde Park with marmalade sandwiches.
But bear in mind (ho ho) that the Paddington of the films arrived here in 2014 and that Hugh Grant can be ruthless.
Prior to 1962 there were far fewer restrictions on at least commonwealth immigration, which wasn't really regulated until the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962. Paddington of course was not from a Commonwealth Country and would have been regarded as an alien and subject to controls, though whether he would have been deported is speculation. In 1958 the Browns would not have been committing an offence.
The film was released in 2014 and set in contemporary London.
Would it be controversial to point out that Paddington is a bear so the Browns would be subject not to immigration legislation but to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act?
“Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person releases or allows to escape into the wild any animal which:
(a) is of a kind which is not ordinarily resident in and is not a regular visitor to Great Britain in a wild state; or
(b) is included in Part I of Schedule 9,
he shall be guilty of an offence.”
Yes , I’m deeply sad to have bothered looking that up.
Post a Comment