起诉英国政府的证词模版

PETER LIU
2025年12月20日

Court-ready first-round witness statement and evidence structure for a County Court claim alleging breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1) in UK immigration policy changes.

WITNESS STATEMENT

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT 【COURT】

Claim No: 【 】

BETWEEN

【CLAIMANT】
Claimant

-and-

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF 【NAME】

(First-Round Filing – Article 1 of Protocol 1)

1. Introduction

  1. I am the Claimant in these proceedings.

  2. This witness statement is made in support of my claim that the Defendant has acted incompatibly with Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (“A1P1”).

  3. This statement is confined to factual matters concerning my existing economic interests and the reliance I placed upon the immigration framework applicable at the time I entered the relevant route.

2. Lawful Residence and Compliance

  1. I am a national of 【country】.

  2. I first entered the United Kingdom lawfully on 【date】.

  3. Since that time, I have continuously held valid immigration leave and have complied with all applicable conditions.

Evidence:

  • E1 – Current immigration status / BRP or digital status

  • E2 – Previous Home Office grant letters

3. The Immigration Route and Previous Settlement Framework

  1. At the time I entered my immigration route, the Immigration Rules provided that lawful residence for 【X】 years would render an applicant eligible to apply for settlement.

  2. This framework was publicly stated by the Defendant and formed the basis upon which I planned my affairs.

  3. I reasonably understood that individuals already on the route would continue to be governed by that framework.

Evidence:

  • E3 – Extracts from the Immigration Rules applicable at the relevant time

4. Financial Expenditure Already Incurred

(Core A1P1 Possessions)

  1. In reliance on the previous framework, I incurred substantial and irreversible financial costs, including:
    a. Immigration application fees paid over multiple years;
    b. Immigration Health Surcharge payments;
    c. Legal and professional fees incurred to maintain lawful residence.

  2. These payments were lawfully required by the Defendant and are non-recoverable.

Evidence:

  • E4 – One-page summary schedule of immigration-related payments

5. Wider Economic Commitments Made in Reliance on the Route

  1. In addition to direct application costs, I made wider economic commitments in reliance on the stability of the route.

  2. These included long-term accommodation arrangements and career decisions oriented towards continued residence in the United Kingdom.

Evidence:

  • E5 – Tenancy or accommodation evidence (redacted)

  • E6 – Limited employment confirmation

6. Change of Policy and Its Effect

  1. The Defendant has proposed and/or implemented changes which materially alter the settlement framework applicable to individuals already on the route.

  2. These changes extend or fundamentally alter the pathway previously applicable to me.

Evidence:

  • E7 – Government policy announcement / consultation document (extracts only)

7. Absence of Transitional Protection

  1. No adequate transitional or “grandfathering” provisions have been made for individuals who had already committed to the previous framework.

  2. I have not been offered any compensation, mitigation, or protection in respect of the financial commitments already incurred.

Evidence:

  • E8 – Extracts demonstrating absence of transitional provisions

8. Impact on Existing Economic Interests

  1. As a result of these changes, sums already expended and economic commitments already made are now subject to prolonged uncertainty and potential loss.

  2. This constitutes an interference with my existing possessions and economic interests for the purposes of A1P1.

Evidence:

  • E9 – One-page personal financial summary

  • E10 – Chronology of key events (maximum two pages)

9. Data Protection

  1. Any reference to third parties in this statement has been limited to what is strictly necessary.

  2. Documents have been redacted where appropriate.

  3. This statement is provided solely for the purposes of these legal proceedings.

10. Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed: _______________________
Name: 【 】
Date: 【 】

FIRST-ROUND EVIDENCE BUNDLE (COMPRESSED)

Ref

Description

Purpose

E1–E2

Immigration status & grants

Lawful residence

E3

Immigration Rules extract

Institutional framework

E4

Fee schedule (1 page)

Existing possessions

E5–E6

Economic commitments

Reliance

E7

New policy document

Interference

E8

No transition

Retroactive effect

E9

Financial summary

Scale of impact

E10

Chronology

Clarity

英格兰及威尔士【XXXXXX】地方法庭

案号：【 】

当事人

【申请人】
申请人

— 与 —

英国内政大臣（THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT）
被告

【姓名】的证人陈述

(首轮提交版 —— 《欧洲人权公约》第一议定书第1条 A1P1)

一、引言

  1. 我是本案的申请人。

  2. 本证人陈述用于支持我主张：被告的行为与《欧洲人权公约》**第一议定书第1条（Article 1 of Protocol 1，下称“A1P1”）**不相容。

  3. 本陈述仅限于陈述与我既有经济利益及我在进入相关移民路径时所产生的信赖有关的事实事项。

二、合法居留与合规情况

  1. 我是【国籍】公民。

  2. 我于【日期】合法进入英国。

  3. 自该日起，我始终持有有效的移民许可，并遵守所有相关签证条件。

证据：

  • E1 —— 当前移民身份 / BRP 或电子身份记录

  • E2 —— 以往内政部批文 / 准许函

三、我进入的移民路径及当时适用的永居框架

  1. 在我进入该移民路径之时，《移民规则》明确规定：合法居留满 【X】年 后，可具备申请永居（ILR）的资格。

  2. 该制度框架由被告公开制定并发布，是我规划个人与经济事务的基础。

  3. 我合理地理解并相信：已在该路径中的申请人将继续受该框架所规制。

证据：

  • E3 —— 相关时期适用的《移民规则》摘录

四、基于原有制度已发生的经济支出

(A1P1 核心“财产”内容)

  1. 基于上述制度框架，我已发生大量、不可逆的经济支出，包括但不限于：
    a. 多次移民签证申请费用；
    b. 医疗附加费（Immigration Health Surcharge）；
    c. 为维持合法居留而产生的律师及专业服务费用。

  2. 上述费用均系被告依法要求缴纳，且无法退还。

证据：

  • E4 —— 移民相关费用汇总表（1页）

五、基于该路径作出的更广泛经济安排

  1. 除直接签证费用外，我还基于该路径的稳定性作出了更广泛的经济安排。

  2. 这些安排包括在英国的长期居住安排，以及围绕长期居留作出的职业规划和就业决定。

证据：

  • E5 —— 租赁或居住安排证明（已适当删减）

  • E6 —— 就业情况简要证明

六、政策变更及其影响

  1. 被告现已提出及/或实施新的政策调整，实质性改变了已在该路径上的申请人所适用的永居框架。

  2. 这些变更延长或根本性改变了此前适用于我的永居路径。

证据：

  • E7 —— 政府政策公告 / 咨询文件（节选）

七、缺乏过渡性保护安排

  1. 对于像我这样已经基于旧制度作出承诺并投入成本的申请人，并未提供任何充分的过渡性或“祖父条款”（grandfathering）保护。

  2. 对于我已发生的经济支出，被告亦未提供任何补偿、缓解或保护机制。

证据：

  • E8 —— 显示不存在过渡性条款的文件摘录

八、对既有经济利益的影响

  1. 由于上述政策变化，我已经支出的费用及已作出的经济安排，现均处于长期不确定及潜在损失的状态之中。

  2. 就 A1P1 而言，这构成了对我既有财产及经济利益的干预。

证据：

  • E9 —— 个人财务摘要（1页）

  • E10 —— 关键时间节点一览（不超过2页）

九、数据保护说明

  1. 本陈述中涉及第三方的内容，已被严格限制在案件审理所必需的范围内。

  2. 所有文件均已在必要情况下进行删减处理。

  3. 本证人陈述仅用于本案司法程序。

十、真实性声明（Statement of Truth）

本人确认，本证人陈述中所述事实真实无误。

签名：_______________________
姓名：【 】
日期：【 】

首轮证据包（压缩版）

编号

内容

用途

E1–E2

移民身份与批文

证明合法居留

E3

旧《移民规则》

制度框架

E4

费用汇总表

既有财产

E5–E6

经济安排

制度性信赖

E7

新政策文件

干预行为

E8

无过渡条款

追溯性

E9

财务摘要

损害规模

E10

时间线

清晰度

五年永居/十年绿卡 (ILR)新政抗议

五年永居/十年绿卡 (ILR)新政抗议

英国移民公平法律行动组

🇨🇳《通往更公平永居的道路？》

— 我们必须团结发声，拒绝让历史倒退

今天的心情，让我想起 2020 年 3 月 16 日，金毛狮王约翰逊宣布伦敦封城，造成全体性恐慌的时候一样。


几乎一夜之间，英国华人社区的人们，和远在中国的亲人们，瞬间陷入了深度的、焦虑的状态。

还是用我老爸说过的那句话，就像我在 2020 年写下的第一篇抗击疫情日记一样：（点击阅读）

作为生存在海外的华人，牢记的第一信条——

“没事不找事，有事不怕事！”

这是面对这次政策危机最有效的方法。

先说事实：

英国政府正计划推出一项名为《通往更公平永居的道路》的新政策。
然而，这个口号听起来“公平”，内容却极其不公平。

政府打算将原本在英国工作签证居住 5 年即可申请永居（绿卡）的制度，

直接改为 10 年——

而且极有可能适用于现在已经在英、已经按 5 年路径规划人生的人群。

同时，那些在英国辛苦学习、工作满 10 年就能申请绿卡的同胞们，
同样面临着政策一刀切、被迫改变计划的重大危机。

还有那些已经根据欧盟人权法获得英国人权签证的同胞们，

将面临更严酷的新政策：
从 5 年，直接延长到 20 年！

这个新政策意味着：

数以十万计来自中国、印度及其他国家的家庭，被迫延长人生规划 5 年甚至 15 年；


很多人因为英国原本承诺“5 年全家可申请永居”而卖房、停业、辞职、迁徙，如今被一句政策推回原点。

政府准备以“一刀切”的方式，用新制度追溯性伤害旧制度下进入英国的人。

这不仅违背公平，也可能违反英国长期坚持的法律原则。

作为一名长期研究英国移民法的律师，我必须明确指出：
英国宪法惯例与司法判例长期强调：
不利于申请人的新政策不得追溯适用。
政府不得随意推翻申请人基于既定政策做出的合理预期。

为什么我们必须发声？

因为沉默，会让政策悄然落地。

因为移民群体的权益，从来不是政府主动保护的对象。

因为如果我们不说，没有人会替我们说。

过去一年，媒体与部分政治人物不断渲染“移民过多”的叙事，忽略了事实：

NHS 的医生护士、
大学的科研人员、
税收贡献稳定的技术工作者、
创造就业的小企业主、
支撑英国科技、金融、贸易的普通移民——

我们不是数字，也不是选票工具；

我们是支撑这个国家正常运转的力量。

我们要求的不多：
只是延续原有规则。
我们并不反对政府为未来申请人设计新制度；

我们反对的是：

把新规则强行套在已经按旧制度规划人生的人身上。

这违背了英国自身的法治传统。

我将发起组织：如果政策“一刀切”，我们将毫不犹豫地启动司法复核（Judicial Review）。

为了让抗争有组织、有力量、能持续推进，
我将正式牵头成立一个跨社区的法律行动组织：

移民公平法律行动组
Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group

这是我们共同的名字，也是我们的盾牌。

若政府坚持追溯适用，我将以此组织为主体：
✔ 发出正式抗议信（Pre-action Protocol Letter）
✔ 组织证据收集
✔ 委托大律师团队撰写法律意见书
✔ 必要时提起司法复核（Judicial Review）

我们不是对抗英国，
我们是在捍卫英国一直引以为傲的法律精神、
法治原则和制度的稳定性。

我呼吁所有在英华人、印度裔及其他移民群体——团结起来。
无论你是：
走 5 年路径的，
新来的留学生，
还是已经拿到永居或入籍的朋友——
都应该关心这件事。

今天能把 5 年改成 10 年，
明天就能变成 15 年，
后天甚至能把家属排除在永居路径之外。
这不只是政策问题，这是原则问题。

我下一步怎么做？

  1. 联合向政府递交反馈

  2. 联系议员与政策委员会

  3. 举办公开会议

  4. 为司法复核准备证据材料

希望大家都能站出来。

我们来到英国，是因为相信这里的规则、稳定、公平与法治。
今天我们站出来，就是为了捍卫这些原则。

移民公平法律行动组 Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group
不是愤怒的符号，而是一个坚定、理性、合法、持续的力量。
我们不会激进，但我们会坚持；
我们不会退缩，但我们会守法；
我们不会被忽视，因为我们团结、专业、有力量。

“我不入地狱，谁入地狱？”


今天，我们愿意站出来承担这个责任！

🇬🇧 “A Path to Fairer Settlement?”

— We Must Stand Together and Speak Out to Prevent History from Moving Backwards

The emotions I feel today take me back to March 16, 2020, when Boris Johnson announced the lockdown of London, triggering widespread panic.
Overnight, the Chinese community in the UK — and our families back in China — fell into deep anxiety and uncertainty.

I recall something my father often said — words I wrote in my first pandemic diary in 2020:
As Chinese people living overseas, our first rule is:
“Don’t create trouble — but never fear trouble when it comes.”
This remains the most effective attitude in facing the current policy crisis.

Let’s start with the facts:
The UK Government is proposing a new policy titled “The Path to Fairer Settlement.”
Yet behind this “fairness” slogan lies deep unfairness.

The proposal would extend the current 5-year settlement route for work visa holders
to 10 years —
and it may apply retroactively to those already in the UK who planned their lives around the existing 5-year rule.

At the same time, those who have worked and studied in the UK for 10 years — and expected to apply for settlement — now also face a sudden, sweeping change that may derail years of planning.

Even those on human rights routes previously protected under EU law may now face an even harsher rule:
an increase from 5 years to 20 years before qualifying for settlement.

This new policy means:
Hundreds of thousands of families from China, India, and elsewhere may be forced to extend their life plans by 5 to 15 years.
Many moved homes, closed businesses, resigned jobs, or uprooted families based on the UK’s promise of a “5-year route to settlement” — only to be pushed back to square one.

The government plans to apply new rules retroactively to those who entered under old rules.
This is not only unfair — it may breach long-standing UK legal principles.

As a lawyer who has studied UK immigration law for many years, I must make this clear:
UK constitutional practice and case law consistently hold that:
Adverse immigration rules must not be applied retroactively.
Governments cannot undermine the legitimate expectations created by existing policies.

Why must we speak up?
Because silence allows policies to pass quietly.
Because migrant rights are never protected unless we defend them.
Because if we don’t speak, no one will speak for us.

For the past year, some media and politicians have pushed the narrative of “too many migrants,” ignoring the truth:

NHS doctors and nurses,
university researchers,
skilled workers paying taxes,
small business owners creating jobs,
and ordinary migrants supporting the UK’s tech, finance and trade —

We are not numbers, not political tools.
We are the people who keep this country running.

Our demand is simple:
Honor the existing rules.
We do not oppose new policies for future applicants.
We oppose retroactively forcing new rules onto those who built their lives under the old system.

This contradicts the UK’s own legal traditions.

I will take the lead:
If the government enforces a blanket policy, we will initiate a Judicial Review without hesitation.

To ensure our actions are structured, strong, and sustained,
I will officially establish a cross-community legal coalition:

Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group
移民公平法律行动组

This will be our shared name — and our collective shield.

If the government insists on retroactivity, the group will:
✔ Issue a formal Pre-Action Protocol Letter
✔ Coordinate evidence collection
✔ Instruct barristers to draft legal opinions
✔ Launch a Judicial Review when required

We are not opposing the UK —
We are defending the very principles the UK prides itself on:
the rule of law, fairness, and institutional stability.

I call on Chinese, Indian and other migrant communities in the UK — let us unite.
Whether you are:
on the 5-year route,
a newcomer planning your future,
or already a settled or naturalised citizen —
this concerns all of us.

If the government can change 5 years to 10 today,
it can make it 15 tomorrow,
or exclude dependants from settlement routes altogether.
This is not just a policy matter — it is a matter of principle.

What will we do next?

Submit collective feedback to the government
Engage MPs and policy committees
Host public forums
Prepare evidence for judicial review

We came to the UK because we believed in its rules, stability, fairness and rule of law.
Today, we speak out to defend those very principles.

The Migrant Fairness Legal Action Group
is not a symbol of anger, but a firm, rational, lawful, and enduring force.
We will not be radical, but we will be resolute.
We will not retreat, but we will stay lawful.
We will not be ignored — because we are united, professional and strong.

“If I descend not into hell, who then shall endure its depths?”
Today, I choose to step forward and take that responsibility.

开始：2025-11-20
结束：2026-11-20
查看活动详情