The European Convention on Human Rights

PaynesGrey

Starmer has been talking generally about looking at Article 3, particulary with regard to foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes in the UK and claiming that they would receive harsher treatment if deported to serve their sentences in prisons in their homelands.

He said there was a difference between deporting someone to "summary execution" and sending them to somewhere with a different level of healthcare or prison conditions.

Leading human rights lawyer Shami Chakrabarti said the number of cases where the courts have ruled someone cannot be removed because of inhuman and degrading treatment, were "very very rare”.

"To say that it's inhuman and degrading because the situation is worse back home than it is in the UK has never been the test that has been employed by the UK courts," she said.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd72p30v574o

The ECHR is enacted in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporates Convention rights into UK law. This allows individuals to challenge public bodies in UK courts if they consider their Convention rights are breached.

Could the UK leave the ECHR but keep the Human Rights Act as it is? No. Parliament would have to pass an Act repealing the HRA too.

This is what Farage and Reform claim, that they would repeal the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

We have been here before though. A Bill of Rights Acts was introduced in Parliament in June 2022 by Dominic Raab. It was scrapped in June 2023. It didn’t get past the First Reading.

Read this Law Society page on what happened:

www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/human-rights/human-rights-act-reforms#:~:text=The%20Bill%20of%20Rights%20Bill%20was%20originally%20introduced%20to%20parliament,Rights%20(ECHR)%20domestically%20enforceable.

More here on leaving the ECHR.

ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/leaving-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

It really isn’t as simple as Farage would have people believe and is unlikely to happen. Thanks goodness we have legislative processes and sensible minds that would protect us all from his excesses.

Not only Mr Farage, also. Mrs Badedenoch. We had human rights well before war monger Blair signed us up to the E U version, that was to bring us in line with the EU. We are not in the EU now, so those laws should not apply. Up until 1998 our human rights laws were more than adequate, and I cannot remember any huge protests saying they weren't. Not even from lawyers. Blair wife was behind this.

You are so rude MaizieD. You probably think it’s really clever to speak to posters in this manner.

Personally I think you wasted your money at the Miss Piggy School of Charm.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

NotSpaghetti

This "chicken nuggets" thing is not as you believe, Sarnia

The argument was that deporting a convicted criminal would be "unduly harsh" on his son because of the boys special needs and food sensitivities which were argued under human rights law (Article 8 ECHR) as you say. The aversion to "foreign chicken nuggets" however, was one, rather silly but memorable (and oft quoted) example used in the evidence.

It was not the basis of the legal claim.

Furthermore, the initial judge's decision (that the evidence of chicken nuggets and numerous other issues) to stop the deportation was overridden.

This deportation case is ongoing
Just saying!

But we cannot allow everyone from whatever country to remain after a decision to refuse asylum because their child has ‘special needs and dietary requirements’. I’m sure there’ll be many children in the country we were hoping to return this family to with exactly the same condition - and they survive.

Some of these appeals (paid for by us too via legal aid) seem specious - but hey, they keep applying on the merry go round as (a) the claimant might as well, after all it’s no skin off their nose - they’re not paying and (b) these appeal lawyers are coining it. Win-win for client and representative.

You know what, FGT? I think you should read the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights report before mouthing off about mythical decisions.

It's quite short and written in plain English.

I assume this was the sort of thing that the PM would have been discussing in Denmark when he was called back home last week.

I don't know if I am particularly cynical, but I have absolutely no faith in any of our political parties when it comes to forming our own British Bill of Rights. Too many things have been promised in the past, that have not come to fruition.

NotSpaghetti

This "chicken nuggets" thing is not as you believe, Sarnia

The argument was that deporting a convicted criminal would be "unduly harsh" on his son because of the boys special needs and food sensitivities which were argued under human rights law (Article 8 ECHR) as you say. The aversion to "foreign chicken nuggets" however, was one, rather silly but memorable (and oft quoted) example used in the evidence.

It was not the basis of the legal claim.

Furthermore, the initial judge's decision (that the evidence of chicken nuggets and numerous other issues) to stop the deportation was overridden.

This deportation case is ongoing
Just saying!

But we cannot allow everyone from whatever country to remain after a decision to refuse asylum because their child has ‘special needs and dietary requirements’. I’m sure there’ll be many children in the country we were hoping to return this family to with exactly the same condition - and they survive.

Some of these appeals (paid for by us too via legal aid) seem specious - but hey, they keep applying on the merry go round as (a) the claimant might as well, after all it’s no skin off their nose - they’re not paying and (b) these appeal lawyers are coining it. Win-win for client and representative.

Excellent post MaizieD.

Only 29 judgements in the last 45 years and the court found that 16 of those could go ahead without breaching the ECHR. Really puts human rights in immigration in perspective.

Perhaps posters who are not aware of it should read this report by the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights at the University of Oxford…

The report'summary of the involvement of the International Court of Human Rights in UK cases is as follows:

• Since 1980, there have been 29 judgments in UK cases at the ECtHR that have concerned removal of a foreign national from the UK.

• In 16 of these cases, the Court found that a planned deportation or extradition by the UK government would not breach the ECHR and could go ahead.

• In the other 13 cases, the Court found that deportation or extradition by the UK government would violate the Convention. Four of these 13 cases concerned the right to family life.

• A high threshold is needed for the ECtHR to deem an Article 8 interference to be disproportionate in the context of deportation. In its most recent finding of a violation relating to a UK deportation in 2020, the Court ruled that a Nigerian man who had been convicted of falsifying immigration documents could not be deported because it ran counter to the interests of his three young and financially-dependent children, all of whom were British citizens, and one of whom needed heart surgery.

The ICHR was not involved in any other cases. They were all judged under the UK Human Rights legislation

The report also points out that

The misreporting of cases concerning human rights in the immigration context is not a new phenomenon. But our review of recent reporting suggests it is growing. There has been a notable proliferation of inaccurate statements, particularly regarding deportation cases, compounded by a failure to explain the UK’s system of immigration tribunals and appeals.44 This type of misreporting is dangerous as it fosters increased public antipathy towards human rights as standards of treatment of individuals and good governance. Moreover, misrepresentations of how our system of appeals functions – and a failure to explain the basics about tribunals and the different tiers of appeals – erodes public confidence in the legal process. This undermines trust in our judiciary on the basis of misleading claims, and in the age of social media puts their personal safety at risk. As Lady Chief Justice Carr has noted, “Unfair or sensational negative reporting creates real, everyday risks to the safety and lives of judges and their families.”
45 In addition, misrepresentations in the press of the ECHR’s role in these tribunal cases are intensifying calls to leave the Convention, seemingly based upon myths and mis- conceptions rather than an accurate assessment of the Convention’s role.46 News reports about tribunal cases included in our review rarely clarified that judges decide cases on the basis of rules and exceptions formulated by Parliament.

substack.com/redirect/433b0b84-8e4a-41ac-90e8-58533bdd8ef9?j=eyJ1IjoibXVobHUifQ.UwafikuCUJvETLnKr_sVV_NYZpOj35ayBU5V5KRuKrQ

Sarnia Mon 06-Oct-25 12:47:03
Things have changed considerably since it's conception in 1949.
"All articles and protocols are common sense statements but they are open to interpretation For example, Article 8, a right to family life. Not long ago an Albanian criminal had his case argued by a human rights lawyer that he should not be deported because his son did not like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets. I mean, come on!
Time to overhaul this I think"

The Albanian in question was stripped of his British citizenship after serving 2 years in prison and a decision was made to deport him back to Albania as a result. The case was heard by an immigration tribunal which ruled it would be "unduly harsh" for his 10 year old son to return to Albania with his father owing to food sensitivities (chicken nuggets being one of the food items), sensory issues and difficulty communicating emotions. The Home secretary appealed the decision and an upper tribunal agreed the case will be heard again by another judge, not yet finalised.

This case possibly triggered PayneGrey's reference "Starmer has been talking generally about looking at Article 3, particularly with regard to foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes in the UK and claiming that they would receive harsher treatment if deported to serve their sentences in prisons in their homelands.

He said there was a difference between deporting someone to "summary execution" and sending them to somewhere with a different level of healthcare or prison conditions.

Leading human rights lawyer Shami Chakrabarti said the number of cases where the courts have ruled someone cannot be removed because of inhuman and degrading treatment, were "very very rare”.

Rare indeed as since the GE last year 2,580 foreign criminals, a 23% INCREASE on the same previous 12 months period, were successfully removed/deported under the current government. I agree with Starmer's suggestion in principle. It's one thing to look at specific ECHR articles and direct Immigration tribunals to interpret sensibly, food sensitivities etc do not constitute torture. But not to ditch ECHR entirely just because of these infrequent cases that grab media headlines.

I do agree with you Sarnia there is merit to a timely review/update of ECHR by the 46 signatories, not to ditch the principles but the particulars of interpretation in context of immigration, a global challenge that is not discreet to the UK.

That would work for lots of people, if true.

I thought, may have read it somewhere that we could stay in but opt out of the immigration clause.

People need to be very careful in what they may mandate authoritarians like Farage and Badenoch to do.

This sets out our rights under the HRA. If you click on each Article, it gives examples of how someone might be affected if they were to lose those rights.

www.bihr.org.uk/get-informed/what-rights-do-i-have

I think people might be suprised by what freedoms they take for granted could be lost.

Eligran, Great topical post, 👏 particularly as Badenoch has announced his morning her plan to quit ECHR so she can increase deportations to 150,000 per year. Her aim is clear and couched in controlling immigration. Her execution is lazy and ill thought through however.

What legislation is she going to REPLACE ECHR for the benefit of those who reside in UK, whether born here or not, a citizen or not etc? She hasn't said. Does the population really want to relinquish those rights for themselves- I don't.

ECHR came about to prevent the atrocities of World War2 and highlight the need for a legally binding instrument to protect fundamental human rights and ensure states upheld them. Leaving ECHR will not achieve her deportation plan in itself and the world in not in a stable place....

Just before reading your OP I had just started another wandering what the impact will be on Good Friday agreement of which ECHR is integral. Not thought through AT ALL....

Just saying, yes, we should try to fact check before posting. Otherwise you are fanning the flames.

This "chicken nuggets" thing is not as you believe, Sarnia

The argument was that deporting a convicted criminal would be "unduly harsh" on his son because of the boys special needs and food sensitivities which were argued under human rights law (Article 8 ECHR) as you say. The aversion to "foreign chicken nuggets" however, was one, rather silly but memorable (and oft quoted) example used in the evidence.

It was not the basis of the legal claim.

Furthermore, the initial judge's decision (that the evidence of chicken nuggets and numerous other issues) to stop the deportation was overridden.

This deportation case is ongoing
Just saying!

Sarnia, I agree with your post. The interpretation and the application of the articles and protocols have changed since they were drawn up in 1949, and they need careful examination. I believe the trans lobby is intending to take its case to the ECHR after the guidelines about their rights to access female toilets have finally been delivered, and according to trans barrister Robin Moira White, they will over rule the judgement of the Supreme Court. (find it on Woman's Hour.)
Now that is not a good thing.

Starmer has been talking generally about looking at Article 3, particulary with regard to foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes in the UK and claiming that they would receive harsher treatment if deported to serve their sentences in prisons in their homelands.

He said there was a difference between deporting someone to "summary execution" and sending them to somewhere with a different level of healthcare or prison conditions.

Leading human rights lawyer Shami Chakrabarti said the number of cases where the courts have ruled someone cannot be removed because of inhuman and degrading treatment, were "very very rare”.

"To say that it's inhuman and degrading because the situation is worse back home than it is in the UK has never been the test that has been employed by the UK courts," she said.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd72p30v574o

The ECHR is enacted in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporates Convention rights into UK law. This allows individuals to challenge public bodies in UK courts if they consider their Convention rights are breached.

Could the UK leave the ECHR but keep the Human Rights Act as it is? No. Parliament would have to pass an Act repealing the HRA too.

This is what Farage and Reform claim, that they would repeal the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

We have been here before though. A Bill of Rights Acts was introduced in Parliament in June 2022 by Dominic Raab. It was scrapped in June 2023. It didn’t get past the First Reading.

Read this Law Society page on what happened:

www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/human-rights/human-rights-act-reforms#:~:text=The%20Bill%20of%20Rights%20Bill%20was%20originally%20introduced%20to%20parliament,Rights%20(ECHR)%20domestically%20enforceable.

More here on leaving the ECHR.

ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/leaving-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

It really isn’t as simple as Farage would have people believe and is unlikely to happen. Thanks goodness we have legislative processes and sensible minds that would protect us all from his excesses.

Adaptations should be discussed. Some aspects redefined, if making a positive contribution. But def not abandoning this protection.

No need to change it or scrap it as far as I'm concerned.

I am glad its there.

Things have changed considerably since it's conception in 1949.
All articles and protocols are common sense statements but they are open to interpretation For example, Article 8, a right to family life. Not long ago an Albanian criminal had his case argued by a human rights lawyer that he should not be deported because his son did not like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets. I mean, come on!
Time to overhaul this I think.

As always the problem comes when one person “rights” impinge upon another’s.

And the perception that precedence is not always given fairly.

Principles are easy really. Practice is where an ideal hits the skin ds,

We should stay with the ECHR

I see no valid reason the leave this protection.