Appeals

Britain’s Daily Mail (whose anti immigration stance is often the talking point amongst immigration lawyers) reported this week that Britain must pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) so that it may pursue the government’s aim of deporting more foreign criminals. (Thanks to the immigration solicitor at court who pointed this article out to me yesterday).

It is said that in order to achieve success in its objective, to “get rid of foreign criminals”, the Home Secretary has advised Prime Minister David Cameron to withdraw from the convention. This follows the criticism that the provisions of the ECHR have for years been used by immigration barristers and solicitors to bring successful appeals against Home Office decisions refusing visas (entry clearance) and removing and deporting people from the UK. The ECHR has been used to win appeals brought against decisions of the Home Secretary in the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and in the High Court and Supreme Court.

The Mail reports that some party members consider that complete withdrawal from the convention is the only “credible option” to free domestic courts from the edicts of the Strasbourg judges. Others will doubtless be taking a less radical stance and talking about further attempts to curtail its effect.

This news follows earlier reporting that despite government’s stated intention and efforts to increase deportations, they have been thwarted by the rise in the rate of successful appeals against deportation.

It is expected that plans to limit the effect of the convention will be presented to the Conservative Party conference this Autumn.

The article does not go on to consider the impact of removing the convention which has in many cases been the only safeguard against often harsh immigration laws- protecting lives, preventing torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and preventing the break up of families.