No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
Successive UK Governments have dismantled British safeguards against wrongful immigration decisions – forcing claimants to rely solely on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Amnesty International argues.
It comes as the Labour Home Secretary reviews the human rights framework Britain helped establish.
The Government has confirmed a review of how the European Convention on Human Rights is applied to UK immigration law, following a number of high-profile cases of non-British criminals successfully ‘avoiding’ deportation.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s review will look at how the courts are applying the law on a ‘right to a family life’ for people who enter the UK irregularly.
She seems set to restrict the powers of judges to grant asylum under the European Convention on Human Rights. Yvette Cooper told MPs the Government would draw up a “clear framework” for judges to ensure decisions fit “what I think the public would want to see”.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Last week, justice secretary Shabana Mahmood also said Britain will pursue reform of the European convention itself, as “public confidence in the rule of law is fraying”, following growing right-wing hostility to the ECHR.
Her claims came in a speech to the Council of Europe, which oversees the convention.
The Government has ruled out leaving the ECHR, but Reform UK – which is leading in the polls – is committed to leaving, and the Conservatives are widely expected to announce their own commitment to doing so later this. Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch has launched a review into potentially quitting the ECHR, which would see the UK joining the likes of Russia and Belarus.
But in briefings published this week, Amnesty details how “political decisions and media distortions” have misled the public about the role of Article 8 – the section of the ECHR which protects everyone in Britain’s right to a private and family life.
Amnesty argues this has “stoked hostility, undermined justice, and paved the way for damaging legal reforms” in the face of right-wing hostility.
Don’t miss a story
The briefings explain how post-2006 changes – including the removal of key protections over deportation decisions and, in 2014, a restriction of deportation appeals to human rights grounds only – have made Article 8, the right to private and family life, the sole legal safeguard for many facing removal, even those with deep roots in the UK.
Under current law, most immigration appeals – except those for asylum cases – can only be made on human rights grounds. Automatic deportation applies to non-British people sentenced to 12+ months in prison, unless it breaches their human rights. And deportation powers can be used even against people born in the UK or with decades of lawful residence.
Resignations, Cancelled Meetings and Culture Wars: How Reform UK Councils Are Descending Into Chaos
Nigel Farage’s band of newly-elected councillors are already starting to struggle, reports Josiah Mortimer
These strict laws create a high-bar for people being wrongly deported to overcome by relying on the European Convention.
Catch-22
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty UK’s Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme Director, said: “This is a classic Catch-22: Governments dismantled their own safeguards, forcing people to rely on Article 8 and then blamed Article 8 for simply doing the job they required it to do.
“People threatened with exile from their homes, families and communities after years, decades, even lifetimes in the UK, are left with only Article 8 to defend them. Lawyers and judges have no choice but to centre legal cases on it.
“Article 8 has become a lightning rod for attacks on the European Convention, often based on myths that omit key facts or include absurd inventions about the significance of cats, chicken nuggets, or other nonsense.”
He added that politicians are “concealing their role in creating the crisis now threatening fundamental justice” after backing roll-backs of rights that leave the ECHR as the only game in town.
“We need leadership that tells the truth. Article 8 doesn’t block deportations; it blocks injustice. It says you can’t tear someone away from their child or partner without strong, proportionate reason. That’s not weakness, that’s decency. And it’s the law.
The Government could reduce the pressure on Article 8, by reinstating rules that “recognise the complex human realities behind immigration cases,” Valdez-Symonds added.
Nigel Farage’s ‘£7 Billion DEI Savings’ Don’t Actually Exist
The media is widely reporting Reform UK’s claims they could save billions by cutting equality schemes. The real figure appears to be around 250 times smaller, reports Josiah Mortimer
‘Last Line of Defence’
Until 2006, deportation decisions took account of a person’s full circumstances including their age, long residence, family ties, and community links. But Amnesty argues that successive Governments “stripped away these safeguards, leaving human rights, especially Article 8, as often the only meaningful legal basis for appeal.”
“For many, it’s the final barrier to unjust separation from loved ones,” the briefing notes.
The human rights group is also keen to expose how politicians and media figures have “distorted judicial decisions” – misrepresenting rulings by highlighting trivial details and omitting core reasons. “This creates the false impression that judges act irrationally or are out of touch.”
Examples include presenting irrelevant details (such as preferring a type of chicken nugget) as the basis for a ruling, and selectively reporting parts of decisions to give a misleading impression.
One notorious case saw then-Home Secretary, Conservative Theresa May, falsely claim that a man avoided deportation because of his cat in 2011. “In fact, the real issue was his legally recognised relationship and the Home Office’s own failure to follow its policy,” Amnesty notes.
Police to Get Powers to Ban Masks at Protests as Starmer’s Government Accused of ‘Copy and Pasting’ Conservative Plans
Human rights groups fear those wearing masks for health or religious reasons, and dissidents seeking to protect themselves from hostile foreign states, will be swept into the criminal justice system
Myths like these have helped “justify bad legislation and rules” leave courts and Article 8 as the “sole defence against injustice” Amnesty argues.
Crossroads
The group is urging the Home Secretary to ensure that her review of Article 8’s role in immigration law starts with “honesty and accuracy.”
“Successive Governments created this dependency on Article 8 by stripping away other safeguards. Any serious review must acknowledge this history, not add to the misinformation,” a spokesperson for the campaign group said.
“The Government is at a crossroads. It can restore fair, domestic rules so people aren’t forced to rely solely on Article 8. Or it can continue the pattern of blaming the law for its own failures.
“If ministers choose the latter, they fuel false hostility and undermine public trust in human rights altogether. That path leads to the legal Wild West, where no one’s rights are safe,” Valdez-Symonds added.
The group is calling for public corrections of misleading narratives about Article 8 and deportation, reinstatement of broader decision-making criteria on deportations including long residence, caregiving responsibilities, and community ties, and the repeal of “harmful laws”.
The laws include automatic deportations under the UK Borders Act 2007, and restrictions on people’s rights to appeal introduced in 2014.
Amnesty wants to see protection from deportation for people with a right to British citizenship (not just those with full citizenship), especially those born or raised in the UK, and a “full and principled commitment” to the European Convention on Human Rights from the Labour Government.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has however promised “a stronger framework” that would require human rights law to be interpreted with a focus on “common sense”.
But Amnesty is calling not just for the Government but for “editors, producers, commentators, presenters, and reporters” to “take responsibility for avoiding and correcting false criticism” of human rights laws.
The Home Office was contacted for comment.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
