Labour plan to stop foreign criminals exploiting human rights laws to avoid deportation rejected by Eurocrats

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood was immediately rebuffed by Europe after calling for a shake-up of human rights laws.
She used a speech in Strasbourg to set out how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 'feels out of step with common sense' and needed to 'evolve'.
But the head of the Council of Europe – the organisation which drew up the ECHR 75 years ago – said the treaty should not be used as a 'scapegoat' and insisted he did not support any moves to amend it.
Ms Mahmood said: 'There is a growing perception – sometimes mistaken, sometimes grounded in reality – that human rights are no longer a shield for the vulnerable, but a tool for criminals to avoid responsibility.
'That the law too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them.'
She added that post-war values of 'democracy, human rights and the rule of law' were now facing 'distortion, doubt, even hostility', as the public's confidence in them was 'fraying'.
For example, she went on, the 'right to private and family life' under Article 8 of the ECHR has 'too often been used in ways that frustrate deportation'.
Secretary general of the Council of Europe Alain Berset said he would not support any measures which would 'weaken' the human rights convention
'The ECHR is one of the great achievements of post-war politics. It has endured because it has evolved. Now, it must do so again,' she said.
However, Council of Europe secretary general Alain Berset said he opposed changes to the convention.
'I am not calling for reform of the ECHR, nor do I support any effort that would weaken it,' he told the Politico website.
'It should never be used as a scapegoat in domestic political debates.
'When states face complex challenges, the answer is not to dismantle the legal guardrails they themselves helped build.
'The proper place for dialogue is through our institutions, not through pressure on the European Court of Human Rights or attempts to bypass the system.'
It also emerged Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has launched a probe into how human rights laws are abused in extradition cases as part of a wider shake-up.
She has ordered Home Office civil servants to conduct a review of the way Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment – is being deployed in immigration cases, especially extraditions.
She is thought to be concerned over cases in which foreign nationals facing extradition from the UK are able to successfully argue it would breach their human rights because of poor conditions in prisons overseas.
There have been several examples of Brazilian nationals dodging extradition because of jail conditions in their home country, for example.
Last month Ms Cooper pledged to tighten the law on Article 8 in an immigration White Paper.
It said the Government will neuter the ability of immigration courts to allow human rights appeals, by strengthening the 'public interest test', making it easier to deport foreign criminals and others.
Legal changes will also make clear that Parliament has the final say on immigration law, and not judges.
Ms Cooper's new review could mean human rights claims are curtailed when foreign nationals attempt to avoid deportation under Article 3 as well as Article 8, it is thought.
New laws curtailing the use of human rights laws in immigration cases are set to be unveiled after Labour party conference in September, the Daily Mail understands.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said a Tory government would leave the ECHR if necessary.
Former Tory home secretaries Priti Patel and Suella Braverman have both called for the UK to leave the convention.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

35 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

ANDREW NEIL: No future UK government has a hope of making things better if it can't reform our incompetent Left-wing, WFH civil service

Former Tory Cabinet minister-turned-magazine editor, Michael Gove, this week revealed that, as Education Secretary, he had to overrule civil servants who wanted to suppress newspaper revelations about in Rotherham. The local council requested the government join it in legal action to prevent The Times from publishing details of its ground-breaking investigation into the scandal. Some senior civil servants in his department advised Gove to join in this bid to muzzle the press.

Daily Mail​

an hour ago

• Daily Mail​

BEL MOONEY: Why is it called ‘infanticide' to kill a newborn child, yet it will soon be legal to end the life of a baby when it's fully formed in the womb?

There are times in life when you shake yourself hard, as if wishing to awaken from sleep, only to find that the nightmare is all too present and frighteningly real. So I felt when our representatives in His Majesty's Government, elected MPs in the country we like to call the 'Mother of Parliaments', gave a resounding 'Yes' to making it legal for any woman to pop a pill at any time in a pregnancy – and terminate the baby in her womb.

The Independent

an hour ago

• The Independent

Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base

The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'