Today The Telegraph published a story about two foreign criminals, jailed for their part in the English riots, who successfully appealed against deportation because of their ‘right to family life’ under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In response, I posted this comment:
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights may appear to provide a ‘right’ for foreign criminals to stay in the UK, but this ‘right’ is only upheld in “truly and exceptional” cases.
For example, in 2010, 5,235 foreign national criminals were deported from the UK, but according to the Court Service, only 102 won appeals to stay here because of Article 8. That’s just 2% of deportations. The vast majority of appeals by foreign criminals to avoid deportation fail.
The Article 8 ‘right to private life’ can be overridden in the interests of national security; public safety; the economic well-being of the country; the prevention of disorder or crime; the protection of health or morals, and the protection and freedoms of others. In other words, Article 8 does not guarantee a right of a foreign criminal to stay in this country.
So, either our judiciary is not properly interpreting the Human Rights Act, or else these cases are not being properly, or fully, reported in the media.
Those who understand why it was essential to establish human rights conventions after the abject horrors of the Second World War will surely not want to see them diluted or undermined. We need to ensure that human rights are properly understood, and legitimately interpreted and upheld. See my article, ‘Why we must never abandon human rights’
See my comment on the Telegraph (may take a few seconds to load):
Jon Danzig’s post on Telegraph article – ‘The foreign rioters we cannot deport’
Other articles by Jon Danzig: