
'We're being taken for mugs': Badenoch says ITV investigation proves ECHR doesn't work
'We cannot be a safe haven for rapists and murderers because the prisons in their country are not nice,' the Conservative leader tells Paul Brand
Kemi Badenoch says Britain 'is being mugged' after an ITV News investigation revealed how fugitives wanted for murder and child rape are being allowed to stay in Britain under human rights law.
The Conservative Party leader said our reporting had further convinced her of the need to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
An undercover investigation by ITV News revealed how two Brazilian fugitives – one wanted for murder, the other a convicted child rapist – had successfully avoided extradition by arguing that their rights under the ECHR would be violated in Brazilian prisons.
They were allowed to remain in the UK, where one has subsequently reoffended.
Reacting to our footage, Kemi Badenoch said: 'We are being taken for mugs. Britain is being mugged by this. It's absolutely shocking. We cannot be a safe haven for rapists and murderers because the prisons in their country are not nice. That's not our job.'
The Conservative leader recently announced that her party would review the role of the ECHR and if necessary, she would argue for Britain to withdraw from it.
'I said that if we need to leave, we should leave,' she told ITV News.
'And I've also said that I'm increasingly coming to that view. This is yet another piece of evidence that shows that the ECHR and the way it's being used by hostile actors, foreign criminals, is no longer fit for purpose.
"And if the problem is not with the law then it is with the judges who are not applying critical thinking or any kind of risk management. The risk of someone being tortured in Brazil versus the risk of a child being killed in England are not equivalent.'
Last night the government announced that it would launch its own review of the way Article 3 of the ECHR – which protects individuals from torture or mistreatment - is being applied in such cases, following our reporting.
ITV News found that fugitives wanted for murder and child rape are being allowed to stay in Britain under human rights law.
The investigation revealed that British courts are refusing their extradition to countries such as Brazil due to claims that they would be mistreated in foreign prisons.
In response the Home Office has announced it is reviewing the way human rights law is applied in similar cases.
In a statement to ITV News, the Home Office said: "The Home Secretary has asked the Home Office to work with other government departments to urgently examine the way Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is operating in these cases, specifically relating to prison standards overseas.
'Foreign nationals who commit crime should be in no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free to roam Britain's streets, including removing them from the UK at the earliest possible opportunity. Extradition is a largely judicial process.'
Our undercover filming has also revealed that fugitives may be lying to judges in order to make a claim under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Among those wanted by Brazilian authorities is a man convicted of repeatedly raping a five year-old girl.
In 2005, Marlon Martins Dos Santos was convicted of killing a man in Brazil, before being sentenced in 2015 to a further 14 years for repeatedly raping the five-year-old girl.
But by then, he had fled to the UK, where a judge again refused Brazil's extradition request under Article 3 of the ECHR.
Dos Santos has committed further crimes against children while being allowed to remain in the UK.
In April he was convicted of possessing and distributing more than a thousand images of child abuse – including the most serious category.
Brazilian authorities also wish to extradite Nicolas Gomes De Brito, who fled to the UK in 2019 after allegedly ordering the murder of a rival gang member in Brazil.
When Brazil requested De Brito's extradition in 2022 he was arrested by British police, but successfully argued that his human rights would be infringed if he was sent back to Brazil.
Among the arguments that he put to a British judge was his claim to have been gay and married to a man, arguing that he would be treated especially harshly in Brazilian prisons due to his sexuality.
However, when ITV News filmed with De Brito he told our undercover reporters that he had a wife and son who lived with him in the UK, raising doubts about his claims in court.
In the end, a judge decided that he could stay in Britain due to broader concerns about his treatment in prison unrelated to his sexuality – namely that his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR could be violated.
When ITV News confronted De Brito at his motorcycle garage and asked why he wasn't in Brazil preparing to stand trial, he replied: 'What are you talking about?'
He was accompanied by a woman in the front seat of his van, but declined to say whether or not she was his wife.
Asked whether he had ordered the alleged revenge killing, De Brito drove off without providing any further answers and did not respond to ITV News when invited to in writing.
This article prohibits torture, inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment.
The Brazilian government told ITV News: "The Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP) acknowledges the concerns expressed by British authorities regarding the conditions of the Brazilian prison system."
It added: "The Brazilian government has adopted a series of measures. It has been working directly with British authorities and the Brazilian Judiciary to provide diplomatic assurances regarding the treatment of extradited individuals and to present reports on the conditions of specific prison facilities."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

South Wales Argus
15 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
No 10 says abortion law change must be ‘safe and workable'
The Commons voted by a majority of 242 to back Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. The issue was treated as a matter of conscience, with MPs given a free vote and the Government remaining neutral. But Downing Street said that now MPs had made that decision, the Government had a responsibility to ensure that if it makes it to the statute book it is in an effective form. Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, who led the amendment to change the law on abortion (Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament) The Bill still has further stages to go through in Parliament and changes could be made to the measures in the House of Lords. A No 10 spokesman said: 'We'll look at this in detail, considering whether any changes are necessary to make it workable and safe. 'But, of course, this would not change the intent of the amendment passed.' The spokesman added: 'As with all laws, the Government has a responsibility to ensure it is safe and workable.' Gower MP Ms Antoniazzi said the change will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. She pushed for the change in the law after cases of women being investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions. Medics or others who facilitate an abortion after the 24-week time limit could still face prosecution if the change becomes law. Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several Cabinet ministers were among the MPs who backed the amendment. They included Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Defence Secretary John Healey, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, Environment Secretary Steve Reed, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Scotland Secretary Ian Murray, Wales Secretary Jo Stevens and Commons Leader Lucy Powell. Kemi Badenoch and many members of the Conservative frontbench voted against it, but shadow education secretary Laura Trott voted in favour. Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence unless with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant. Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th century law the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. Kate Ellis, joint head of litigation at the Centre for Women's Justice, said: 'It is high time that these outdated, Victorian laws were removed from the statute books. 'This proposed change in the law will only impact a relatively small number of women each year who find themselves – in already desperate circumstances – threatened with imprisonment for a criminal offence they probably didn't know existed.' The changes do not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands there.

Leader Live
15 minutes ago
- Leader Live
No 10 says abortion law change must be ‘safe and workable'
The Commons voted by a majority of 242 to back Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. The issue was treated as a matter of conscience, with MPs given a free vote and the Government remaining neutral. But Downing Street said that now MPs had made that decision, the Government had a responsibility to ensure that if it makes it to the statute book it is in an effective form. The Bill still has further stages to go through in Parliament and changes could be made to the measures in the House of Lords. A No 10 spokesman said: 'We'll look at this in detail, considering whether any changes are necessary to make it workable and safe. 'But, of course, this would not change the intent of the amendment passed.' The spokesman added: 'As with all laws, the Government has a responsibility to ensure it is safe and workable.' Gower MP Ms Antoniazzi said the change will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. She pushed for the change in the law after cases of women being investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions. Medics or others who facilitate an abortion after the 24-week time limit could still face prosecution if the change becomes law. Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several Cabinet ministers were among the MPs who backed the amendment. They included Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Defence Secretary John Healey, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, Environment Secretary Steve Reed, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Scotland Secretary Ian Murray, Wales Secretary Jo Stevens and Commons Leader Lucy Powell. Kemi Badenoch and many members of the Conservative frontbench voted against it, but shadow education secretary Laura Trott voted in favour. Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence unless with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant. Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th century law the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. Kate Ellis, joint head of litigation at the Centre for Women's Justice, said: 'It is high time that these outdated, Victorian laws were removed from the statute books. 'This proposed change in the law will only impact a relatively small number of women each year who find themselves – in already desperate circumstances – threatened with imprisonment for a criminal offence they probably didn't know existed.' The changes do not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands there.

The National
19 minutes ago
- The National
Keir Starmer to chair emergency Cobra meeting on Middle East today
The high-level meeting follows the Prime Minister's return from the G7 summit in Canada at which he and other world leaders reiterated their 'commitment to peace and stability' but stopped short of calling for a truce between Israel and Iran. But reports have also suggested president Donald Trump is considering joining Israeli action against Iran after he left the G7 summit a day early to meet with military chiefs. READ MORE: 'I may do it, I may not': Donald Trump on whether US will strike Iran Wednesday's Cobra meeting comes amid confusion over whether British nationals should remain in Israel after the Foreign Office withdrew family members of embassy staff from the country. The Foreign Office said the withdrawal was temporary and a 'precautionary measure', with staff remaining at both the embassy in Tel Aviv and the consulate in Jerusalem. A spokesperson for the Foreign Office said: 'Our embassy in Tel Aviv and consulate in Jerusalem remain fully staffed and continue to provide consular services to those who require assistance.' But Downing Street would not say whether British nationals should attempt to leave the country. Asked whether British nationals should leave Israel, a Number 10 spokesman would only say that the UK Government's 'key message' was to 'follow the advice of local authorities on staying close to shelter'. Britons have already been advised against all travel to Israel, and those already in the country have been urged to register their presence with the embassy. The Number 10 spokesman added: 'This is a fast-moving situation. We are keeping all our advice under constant review and the FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) continues to plan for a variety of developments as you would expect.' The decision to withdraw family members of embassy staff comes as Israel's air campaign against Iran entered its sixth day, with jets striking the Iranian capital Tehran overnight. Israeli military chiefs said the air strikes targeted a facility used to make uranium centrifuges, part of Iran's nuclear programme, and a factory building missile components. READ MORE: G7 support for Israel's war on Iran 'threatens humanity', expert warns Tehran has accused Tel Aviv of attacking civilians, while US-based group Human Rights Activists said on Wednesday that Israeli bombardment had killed 585 people in Iran, including 239 civilians. In response, Iran has fired some 400 missiles and hundreds of drones at Israel, killing at least 24 people. But its response appeared to diminish on Tuesday night, with only 10 missiles intercepted by Israel's Iron Dome. Meanwhile, Trump is reported to be considering whether to deploy American forces in support of Israel's operations against Iran. Trump met with top military advisers on Tuesday night to discuss the situation, shortly after a series of social media posts in which he described Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as an 'easy target'. He later posted the words 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER', prompting Khamenei to warn that any American military involvement would result in 'irreparable damage' to the US. The posts followed Trump's decision to leave the G7 conference in Canada a day early to deal with what he called 'big stuff', triggering speculation that American forces might join Israeli strikes. Earlier, Keir Starmer had insisted Trump was interested in de-escalation in the Middle East, saying 'nothing' he had heard from the president suggested Washington was poised to get involved. Asked whether the Prime Minister was still confident that Trump would not involve US forces in the conflict, a Number 10 spokesman said the UK's position was still that 'we want to de-escalate rather than escalate'.