Jail history haunts Hanson

[Hvr]

IMMIGRATION officials embarrassed Pauline Hanson when they pulled her aside in New Zealand and asked her to ''please explain'' her time in jail...




This week's xx_X (I'm not giving publicity to the rag) magazine reports that New Zealand immigration officials questioned Ms Hanson, 55, on her arrival for a South Island hiking holiday with friends earlier this month.


"I felt terribly embarrassed,'' she said. ''I basically felt like a criminal. I was taken to another room and asked to 'please explain' about my time in jail.''
Before making any further travel plans, including a trip to Britain, Ms Hanson said she would need to ensure her quashed conviction would not continue to dog her through immigration security zones.


"I need to have this cleared up. I am not a criminal," she said.


The former One Nation politician served 11 weeks in jail for electoral fraud in 2003 before being acquitted.

Let's ignore her politics for the purpose of discussion here. The issue is that an arrest and subsequent acquittal will still adversely impact on travel. I suggest that her notoriety preceded her and that her jailing is well known.

Wonder if she is planning a trip to the USA and if she has applied for a visa which of course is generally required if you have been arrested?

 

[drron]

Surely if her conviction was overturned there should be no record?

 

[one9]

Surely if her conviction was overturned there should be no record?

I think she ticked the wrong box.

The article states:
"They have a card that asks if you’ve had a criminal conviction of more than 12 months.."

She ticked Yes.

If the card says "had" then she did tick the gramatically correct box. If the card says "have" then she ticked the wrong box.

The article then states:
"Immigration said they had no record of my conviction"

If I had a spent conviction, had been charged and had no conviction recorded, or had a quashed conviction, I would tick No to such box. Ticking no would be correct according to Australian law, but possibly not according to the law of the country you are visiting. If I was found out, I would just explain that according to Australian law I am able to answer No to this question in Australia and I thought it was the same in your country.

In this example if New Zealand (who aussie shares a lot of info with) can't see her conviction, then it would be very unlikely that any other country could.

 

[SeaWolf]

The US one is even more broad:

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance;

(Spelling error theirs, not mine). Even if the whole thing turned out to be a mistake and after being arrested you were released without ever being charged, you'd still have to tick the 'Yes' box and probably get treated like a terrorist. :shock:

 

[simongr]

I think the US question is only on the visa waiver program - so you would just need to apply for a visa which you would expect to be granted as you had no conviction. That is somewhat different to being treated like a terrorist.

 

[JohnK]

The same story from another reporter from Sydney Morning Herald.

Pauline asked to 'please explain' in NZ

 

[SeaWolf]

I think the US question is only on the visa waiver program - so you would just need to apply for a visa which you would expect to be granted as you had no conviction.

The question on the DS-156 form to apply for a visa is even harsher:

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action?

https://evisaforms.state.gov/ds156.asp

 

[drron]

The question on the DS-156 form to apply for a visa is even harsher:
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action?

https://evisaforms.state.gov/ds156.asp

Though having a conviction sqashed or overturned I believe is not the same as a pardon or amnesty which dont address the question of guilt.
Besides I would consider it hilarious that LOFTAP would consider it an act of moral turpitude for a politician to benefit from electoral contributions.

 

[Skyring]

Besides I would consider it hilarious that LOFTAP would consider it an act of moral turpitude for a politician to benefit from electoral contributions.

If you check the US legislation, crimes of a purely political nature don't count. One view here.

Can't resist this quote:

Political offenses are not included in this ground of exclusion. Political offenses are generally considered to be acts taken with others as a part of war, insurrection or rebellion in an attempt to replace the legal authority.​

 

[harvyk]

If you check the US legislation, crimes of a purely political nature don't count. One view here.

Can't resist this quote:

Political offenses are not included in this ground of exclusion. Political offenses are generally considered to be acts taken with others as a part of war, insurrection or rebellion in an attempt to replace the legal authority.​

Love it...

Back on topic, realistically I think that those forms should be filled out in accordance with the laws of the country who's courts have made a finding of guilty or innocent.

I do know the argument that "your entering their country you have to play by their rules" but I disagree... I have to only follow the rules of Australia when I am in Australia... There are certain things which I can freely and legally do here, and yet there are other places in the world where the same action or thing is considered illegal.

Now lets say I do something in Australia which is illegal in the US, but is not illegal here (eg drink at the age of 18). If I was to travel to the US as a 20 year old, who has drunk in Australian pub's, should I advise the immigration officer that I have in the past undertook drinking, because it would be illegal for me to currently drink in the US?

Now lets look at this from the other side, what if I do something illegal outside of the US, but it's legal in the US, eg drinking in some islamic countries is highly illegal, but provided your over 21, it's not an issue in the US. Should I simply not tell them that I spent 3 years in jail for illegal drinking, considering it wouldn't have been a crime in the US?

Basically the way I read those sorts of questions is they are trying to establish if you will follow the US laws whilst on US soil, if you have broken the local laws elsewhere, what's to say you won't break the law whilst in the US.

That said, our laws have the provision for convictions to be overturned, or considered spent. Which means under the eye's of our laws, you are no longer considered guilty of the crime, and thus do not need to say you where once convicted. Remember that the US (and other countries) are using our legal system to determine a position of guilt or innocence. If you get brought in front of the courts under Australian law, you don't then go infront of the US courts to get their opinion on the matter.

NB, I am well above 21, I'm simply using this as an example, as I have been quite legally drinking since 18, and I have also entered the US.