Latest news with #ECHR
Telegraph
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Eurocrats shut down Labour's hopes of ECHR reform
The head of the organisation overseeing the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has slapped down Labour's calls for reform. Just a day after Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, called for the ECHR to 'evolve' or lose public trust, Alain Berset, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, declared that he was 'not calling for reform' of the convention. Mr Berset appeared to distance himself from previous comments that he made no more than two weeks ago when he suggested that the ECHR must adapt in face of a growing backlash over migration, with 'no taboo' on rewriting its rules. The future of the ECHR – and the UK's application and disapplication of it – is one of the key dividing lines between the UK political parties. Nigel Farage's Reform wants out; Kemi Badenoch has suggested it is likely the UK will quit without reform of the ECHR; and Labour is seeking reform per se while drawing up new rules to curb judges' use of it in immigration cases. It has been brought to the fore by The Telegraph's exposure of dozens of cases where foreign criminals and illegal migrants have avoided deportation by claiming their ECHR rights would be breached if they were removed. In an interview with Politico, the political website, Mr Berset appeared to put himself at odds with all three main parties. He said: 'I am not calling for reform of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor do I support any effort that would weaken it. '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.' 'Meaningful reform is impossible' Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said Mr Beset's comments 'proved... meaningful reform is impossible'. He added: 'This proves what has long been clear: meaningful reform of the ECHR is impossible. Labour's fake plans to reform it is a ruse to trap us in the convention for decades more while our border crisis worsens. Starmer doesn't care enough about protecting the British public to leave.' Meanwhile, Ms Mahmood has warned the ECHR was 'fraying' public confidence in the rule of law because it is out of step with common sense. In a speech at the Council of Europe on Wednesday, she said public trust in the court was 'eroding' because it 'too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them'. UK ministers are proposing to raise the threshold to make it harder for judges to grant the right to remain based on article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to a family life, and article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There is not just pressure from the UK. Last month, nine EU leaders wrote to the Council of Europe warning that the ECHR was preventing them from deporting foreign criminals. They said European judges were interpreting the ECHR so widely that the 'wrong people' were being protected. This was placing 'too many limitations' on their governments' abilities to deport 'serious violent' offenders and drug dealers. They warned that the ECHR was threatening the safety of citizens because the way it was being interpreted prevented governments from tracking foreign criminals they could not deport. The nine – including Donald Tusk, the former president of the European Council and now the Polish prime minister, and the Italian premier Giorgia Meloni – said the ECHR was also undermining efforts to counter Russia's weaponising of migrants against the EU bloc.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Britain must be ready to reform international agreements
Something extraordinary has just happened. In March, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said that she was reviewing the way the European Convention on Human Rights was being interpreted by the courts. Three months later, no one will defend the convention as it is. Two more MPs joined the stampede to change it today: Jake Richards and Dan Tomlinson, two ambitious Labour backbenchers, have a joint article in The Times calling for "reform" of the convention. It became clear that this was not just a matter of tactical positioning in British politics when nine EU leaders, led by the prime ministers of Italy and Denmark, published an open letter on 22 May to launch an 'open-minded conversation" about the "interpretation" of the convention. They said: 'We have seen, for example, cases concerning the expulsion of criminal foreign nationals where the interpretation of the convention has resulted in the protection of the wrong people and posed too many limitations on the states' ability to decide whom to expel from their territories." A week later, Richard Hermer, the UK attorney general, delivered a lecture that attracted attention for suggesting that Kemi Badenoch's wish to "disengage" from the European court was like legal arguments made in Nazi Germany to "put aside" international law. He had to apologise for that "clumsy" analogy, which meant that hardly anyone noticed something else he said in the lecture, namely that Britain must be ready to "reform" international agreements such as the convention so that they retain "democratic legitimacy". A few days later, Alain Berset, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the convention and its court, and which as every Brexit pedant knows is separate from the European Union, said: "We need adaptation. We need discussion about the rules that we want to have, and there is no taboo." In just a few weeks, the debate has moved from "how the convention is interpreted" to "rewriting the convention itself". Something is happening. It is almost as if European leaders have learned from their failure to give David Cameron reforms that would have enabled him to win the referendum and keep Britain in the EU. They have realised that they need to change the ECHR in order to save it. The transformation of the politics of the issue in the UK was confirmed last week, when Ed Davey said that he wouldn't be opposed to rewriting the convention. "If you could do it collectively, working with the court, with European colleagues, yes, one could look at that," he said. That is Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who fought a general election on a promise to cancel Brexit; the party that most venerates European institutions and international law. What is going on? Nigel Farage claims that he has changed the terms of the debate: that the liberal establishment is panicking because of his campaign against the ECHR. First, he forced Kemi Badenoch to harden her line, inherited from Rishi Sunak, of being prepared to repudiate the ECHR if necessary; now the government is trying to hold back the tide by reviewing the way the convention is interpreted or even amending it. This is not the whole story. I don't think Giorgia Meloni and Mette Frederiksen were prompted to publish their open letter by Reform's success in British opinion polls. They were responding to a genuine problem that has frustrated elected leaders for a long time. I remember Tony Blair being as irritated as his first-class temperament would allow at the Chahal decision of 1996 that made it hard for him to deport various criminals and terrorists. But the way the convention, especially article 8, the right to family life, has been interpreted, both by the European Court of Human Rights and by national courts, has become more of a problem in recent years. In Britain, the Telegraph has given the appearance of campaigning against human rights law by simply reporting a series of rulings by immigration tribunals. (Perhaps the most eye-catching use of the ECHR in recent months was the Albanian criminal whose deportation was halted partly because of his young son's aversion to foreign chicken nuggets.)
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Algerian burglar spared deportation after claiming to be gay and trans
A convicted Algerian burglar and robber has avoided deportation after claiming to be gay and transgender. The 27-year-old serial offender, who was granted anonymity by immigration judges, claimed asylum in 2013 which was granted in the same year with leave to remain in Britain for five years. However, over the next seven years, he committed multiple offences including burglary, robbery, theft, assault and hate crime culminating in a four-year three-month jail sentence. Facing deportation, he appealed against his removal which was backed by an upper immigration tribunal on the basis that as a gay man, who 'was and is a transvestite and/or is transgender', he would face persecution if returned to Algeria. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have been able to remain in the UK or halt their deportations. On Wednesday, Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, used a speech in Strasbourg to confirm plans to change the law to tighten the way that judges interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Ministers are proposing to raise the threshold to make it harder for judges to grant the right to remain based on article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to a family life, and article 3, which which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Public trust 'eroding' In her speech, Mr Mahmood said the European Court of Human Rights was 'fraying' public confidence in the rule of law because it is out of step with common sense, according to the justice secretary. She said public trust in the court was 'eroding' because it 'too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them'. After being granted asylum in 2013, the Algerian went on a crime spree over a nine month period which led to convictions for burglary, attempted burglary, threatening behaviour and theft. He was given a warning in May 2015 that he risked deportation if he committed further offences. However, between May 2016 and June 2018 he received eight convictions including for theft. He received a second warning letter in September 2018 following a hate crime, and got another warning in 2019. In 2020, he was found guilty of assault, robbery and breaching a criminal behaviour order for which he was jailed for four years and three months. A year later, he was issued with a deportation order and his refugee status was revoked by the Home Office. But an immigration tribunal heard evidence that homosexuals in Algeria were 'subjected to severe societal disapproval and stigma, and are soft targets for anyone wishing to harass or attack them'. It was told: 'While being homosexual is not in itself illegal, any homosexual or bisexual in Algeria who does not conceal their sexuality is putting themselves at risk of discrimination and persecution, as well as the threat of physical violence. 'Were he to wear women's clothes and make-up, he would certainly draw negative attention to himself, and would likely be subjected to ridicule, hostility and possible harm. 'While there are some transvestites and transgender individuals in Algeria, including a famous transgender boxer, Imane Khelif, and a transgender social media star, Jad Wahbi, they have suffered abuse and harm.' It was claimed he could end up destitute. 'Risk of suicide' Immigration judge Christopher Hanson said: 'I find having considered the evidence as a whole that there is credible evidence MS has severe mental health issues which cannot be properly treated in Algeria which give rise to realistic prospects of a further decline in his mental health condition and serious prospects which might, realistically, increase the risk of suicide. 'In any event, the core finding I make is that the Secretary of State has not discharged the burden of proof upon her to the required standard to show that the conditions that warranted the grant of refugee status to MS previously have changed to the extent that he is no longer entitled to a grant of international protection. 'On that basis he is entitled to rely on an exemption to the order for his deportation from the United Kingdom, as to remove him will put the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Refugee Convention. On that basis I allowed the appeal.'
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Sovereign assurance given in UK extradition case
Two months after a UK trial court refused to extradite two fugitives - Virkaran Awasty and his wife Ritika Awasty -- citing the Sanjay Bhandari case and stating that they could be at risk of torture by investigators , India gave a sovereign guarantee that if extradited, Awastys 'won't be interrogated', highly placed officials familiar with the development said. The assurance might give some relief to the prosecutors in London in India's appeal in the UK high court against the Awastys' discharge, the second such jolt faced by Indian investigators this year (the first being the Sanjay Bhandari case in February). The Awastys and their firm Bush Foods are accused of committing a ₹750 crore fraud. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a charge sheet against them in November 2020. The economic offences wings of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh police are also investigating them. They were arrested in London in October 2019 after which extradition proceedings were initiated. On February 28 t, a King's bench division at the UK high court allowed Bhandari's plea against his extradition to India, primarily on the ground that he would be at real risk of extortion, torture or violence in Tihar jail, from other prisoners or prison officials. The high court also refused India permission to go to the Supreme Court against the discharge order, which means that Bhandari is now a free man in the UK. Weeks later, on April 11, chief magistrate Paul Goldspring at Westminster Magistrate's court discharged the Awastys on unconditional bail. The court referred to the Bhandari ruling in its order stating that 'in the absence of assurances that Awasty won't be held in Tihar, or if he is, that the issues raised in Bhandari will not apply to him, the real risk remains'. Immediately after the judgement, the crown prosecution service (CPS), which is fighting these extradition cases on India's behalf, wrote to officials n Delhi advising them to provide a sovereign guarantee saying the accused will not be tortured or interrogated and that India will comply with article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibiting torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners. 'To persuade the courts in the UK, we have recently given a sovereign assurance that the Awastys won't face post-extradition interrogation (which means they won't be removed from the prison for questioning) or torture, if extradited to India,' said a senior officer, who asked not to be named. The Sanjay Bhandari judgement has caused significant harm to India's extradition campaign against several high-profile economic offenders with almost all the accused persons located abroad -- including Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi, and others -- now citing it to seek relief. Indian agencies won a small reprieve last month when the UK high court rejected Nirav Modi's plea for bail . In his order in May third week, judge Michael Fordham rejected Modi's plea that cited the Bhandari judgement saying , 'I am not able to place significant weight on this feature' while adding that unlike Modi's plea (for bail), Bhandari's was a case of prospective post-extradition police interrogation'. Indian agencies recently managed to track fugitive Mehul Choksi in Antwerp and got him arrested in April as part of an extradition request. He has already spent over two months in a prison there and will continue to stay in jail till September 19, the next date of hearing. HT reached out but did not get a comment from MEA till the time of going to print.
Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Times
Could Keir Starmer be just the man to reform the ECHR?
There is no one better suited than Sir Keir Starmer to lead efforts to reform the European Convention on Human Rights. That is not the view of a Labour politician but of Jeremy Hunt, the former Conservative chancellor. Writing in his new book, he points to the prime minister's background as a human rights lawyer who has supported and defended the rights enshrined in the ECHR — making his credentials for reforming it 'impeccable'. Labour MPs and even those who sit around the cabinet table are less certain. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary who is leading the UK's case for reform of the ECHR, has told colleagues that even she is unsure of what the prime minister wants to achieve or how far he is prepared to go on changing the 75-year-old convention.
