15 more countries where criminals can be deported to before appeal
Hundreds more foreign criminals will be kicked out of the UK before their appeals are heard, it has been announced.
Ministers said the 'Deport Now Appeal Later' scheme will be extended from eight to 23 countries - meaning their cases will be heard from overseas. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the controversial measure will target lawbreakers who "manipulate the system".
It comes after the Government vowed to remove criminals to their homelands after being convicted. Ms Cooper said: 'For far too long, foreign criminals have been exploiting our immigration system, remaining in the UK for months or even years while their appeals drag on.
"That has to end. Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system, which is why we are restoring control and sending a clear message that our laws must be respected and will be enforced.'
India, Bulgaria and Australia are among the countries to be included in the scheme. It will mean those who have had a human rights claim against their removal rejected will make their case via video link.
Also added are Angola, Botswana, Brunei, Canada, Guyana, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda and Zambia. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, said: "We are leading diplomatic efforts to increase the number of countries where foreign criminals can be swiftly returned, and if they want to appeal, they can do so safely from their home country. Under this scheme, we're investing in international partnerships that uphold our security and make our streets safer."
The Home Office said the measure will help "scale up" the UK's ability to remove foreign criminals, alongside measures announced yesterday(SUN) to deport offenders as soon as they are sentenced. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the move, which requires parliamentary approval, would save £54,000 a year per prison place.
Officials have said increasing deportations will help ease pressure on overcrowded prisons. But figures from the Ministry of Justice from the end of June suggest there are currently just 772 prisoners from the 15 new countries.
The "deport now, appeal later" scheme for human rights claims was introduced in 2014. But it suffered a setback three years later when the Supreme Court ruled it was unlawful if it stopped an offender from giving live evidence in their appeal.
However judges accepted that giving evidence over a video link could be sufficient. The UK currently has arrangements for video appeals with eight countries, including Tanzania, Belize, Finland and Estonia.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Australia news live: business council plan to cut ‘$110bn red tape' including building codes and environmental assessments
Update: Date: 2025-08-14T20:30:12.000Z Title: Welcome Content: Good morning and welcome to our live news blog. I'm Martin Farrer with the top overnight stories to get you started. Before next week's economic summit, the Business Council of Australia has outlined a vision to relieve business owners from what it calls the country's '$110bn red tape burden' as the federal government hunts for a solution to the nation's withered productivity. More coming up. The war in the Pacific ended 80 years ago and a ceremony at the Australian War Memorial later today will remember the service personnel who gave their lives fighting the Japanese. We have more coming up.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Palestine Action ban reveals Labour's dangerously authoritarian instincts
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... 'Why can you not just be Labour?' It is a question I have been asked since I was a teenager, often by Labour friends in an exasperated tone. It is not an entirely unreasonable question. In many areas of policy on health, education, transport etc, Labour and Liberal Democrats seek broadly similar outcomes and, the argument goes, our electoral system punishes the centre left for splitting. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The question, however, ignores the fact that sometimes what matters in politics is the first principles from which you start. For all the similarities between Liberal Democrats and Labour, the differences matter too. Labour has centralising instincts that will always be anathema to liberals who champion community empowerment. Then there is the freedom thing. READ MORE: Why Palestinians in Gaza are protesting with photos of Israeli children killed by Hamas Police and protesters confront each other during a demonstration in support of Palestine Action outside the High Court in London (Picture: Dan Kitwood) | Getty Images Labour's socialist roots remain Scratch any Labour government and you will find a deep authoritarian streak. It is increasingly apparent that this is every bit as true of Yvette Cooper's Home Office as it was of those headed by David Blunkett, John Reid and Jack Straw. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We hear talk of introducing digital ID cards (with no consideration of how to protect the data held). Now live facial-recognition technology is to be rolled out on our streets with no thought given to how it is to be used and against whom. Labour may no longer style themselves as socialists but their roots in a politics that expects government to control the people are there for all to see. For liberals, protecting freedoms of speech, assembly and protest is a given. It runs to the heart of how we see the relationship between the citizen and the state. For Labour, these freedoms are rarely more than 'nice to have' when circumstances allow. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So it was that last weekend we saw the Metropolitan Police's finest in hand-to-hand combat with the serried ranks of retired teachers, social workers and academics armed with placards proclaiming their opposition to genocide – something that would be uncontroversial in most normal times – and their support for Palestine Action (which seems to be the sticking point). Palestine Action's unacceptable tactics Let me make a few things clear at this point. I am not a supporter of Palestine Action. The tactics that they employ in protesting against government policy on Palestine are wrong-headed and counter-productive. Targeting military installations for acts of vandalism is not an acceptable tactic to promote the Palestinian cause. It does not, however, make you a terrorist organisation and the decision to proscribe Palestinian Action was disproportionate and a mistake. That proscription would lead to the sort of scenes that we witnessed at the weekend was inevitable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Using anti-terror legislation to arrest peaceful protestors is not just illiberal and oppressive. We give government extra power to tackle terrorism and trust them to use it for that. Anti-terrorism laws should be used to deal with terrorists, not our own citizens who wish to demonstrate their disagreements with their government. Ultimately the biggest threat to our safety could turn out to be Labour's authoritarian instincts.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Ban Britain's most dangerous drivers for life, say Tories
Britain's most dangerous drivers should be banned from the roads for life, the Conservatives have said. Just one per cent of people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving last year were handed a lifetime driving ban, new figures reveal. Just half a per cent of those convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving were banned for life. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Under this Government, you can kill someone with your car and be back on the road in just five years. 'In England and Wales, the most dangerous drivers are being let back behind the wheel every single day because of soft sentencing guidelines. This isn't justice – it's a system that clears killers to drive again and again and again. It's time to introduce automatic lifetime bans for the worst offenders. It costs nothing, it saves lives, it is time to act.' Sentencing Council rules set the minimum ban for causing death by dangerous driving at five years. Causing serious injury by dangerous driving attracts a minimum ban of two years, even at the highest culpability and harm levels. Sir Simon Clarke, the director of the Onward think-tank, which carried out the research, said: 'It's outrageous that killers and serial offenders are being handed their licences back like nothing happened. Lifetime bans should be the norm, not the exception.' Onward's research highlighted cases including that of Cain Byrne, 20, who – despite never having held a driving licence – ran over and killed an 81-year-old cyclist moments after inhaling laughing gas from a balloon. He was sentenced earlier this year to 11 years and six months in a young offenders' institution, and banned from driving for 17 years and eight months. In another case highlighted, a motorist who ran over a cyclist after the victim spat on his Land Rover during a road rage row was jailed for 18 months and banned from getting behind the wheel for three years. Nick Cook was left with a broken pelvis, six broken ribs and a punctured liver after the road rage incident. Alan Moult, then aged 74, admitted causing serious injury by dangerous driving over the July 2020 confrontation. Three years ago, the Conservatives toughened sentencing rules for causing death by dangerous driving, with offenders facing life sentences from 2022 onwards. The current Sentencing Council rules, which judges must obey, say the typical sentence will fall between two and 18 years imprisonment.
