Latest news with #ECHR
Scottish Sun
8 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Hit-and-run drunk driver wins fight against deportation despite death crash
Immigration judges have blocked his removal despite hearing his offending had escalated A HIT-AND-RUN drink-driver who caused the death of a pedestrian has won his fight against deportation to Lithuania. Sergejus Aksiotovas, 54, pictured above, came to Britain in 2013 and lived in Wolverhampton before being jailed for five years in 2021 after knocking down a 63-year-old man. Advertisement The Home Office sought to deport him but immigration judges have blocked his removal despite hearing his offending had escalated. Aksiotovas, a dad released from prison on licence in November 2023, had a previous conviction for being in charge of a vehicle with excess alcohol. The Home Office argued an immigration judge did not adequately take into account the risks he posed. But legal documents stated: 'The judge accepted he is genuinely remorseful, that he completed an alcohol awareness programme in prison and that he has abstained from alcohol for the last four years. Advertisement "The judge also accepted that he is a man who is willing to learn from his mistakes and rehabilitate." It comes after Home Office ministers were slammed for being unable to say how many foreign criminal deportations are being blocked by European human rights laws. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has vowed to tighten the laws following a massive backlash against foreign offenders dodging deportations on spurious ECHR grounds. Last month a man was seen fleeing across Heathrow Airport tarmac after fleeing security guards ahead of a deportation flight. Advertisement 1 Convicted drink-driver Sergejus Aksiutovas has had his deportation blocked by immigration judges Credit: West Midlands Police
The Sun
a day ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Pulling out of the ECHR could give us back some badly-needed control over our borders – but will Starmer allow it?
Data weak HOW can the Home Office send lawyers to court every day to fight deportation appeals yet somehow not know how often EU laws are used to defeat them? The European Court of Human Rights is a major cause of Britain's inability to keep its borders secure. Foreign rapists and drug dealers routinely use the foreign court's power to win the right to stay in the UK or make endless appeals. So you would think knowing how many cases it had lost — and on what grounds — would be a key piece of information for the Government. It's symptomatic of the Home Office's utter failure to grip illegal migration, now the country's top concern. The clamour for Britain to quit the ECHR has risen as public anger grows at hundreds of illegal migrants arriving unchallenged every week. Secrecy over the airlift of thousands of Afghans has only added to a suspicion that the Government isn't on their side. Hence such depressing scenes in the previously quiet market town of Epping. Pulling out of the ECHR could give us back some badly-needed control. Moment migrant wearing life jacket joins mob of yobs lobbing rocks at French riot cops hours after ANOTHER boat set sail Beyond evil WHO is allowing monster Ian Huntley to stroll around his prison wing wearing a Manchester United lookalike shirt mocking his victims? Huntley cruelly and selfishly took the lives of 10-year-old best friends Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Yet somehow Huntley has been able to make some kind of warped tribute by having the makeshift red shirt printed with the number 10. Both girls were wearing replica United jerseys in the last picture of them taken together so vile Huntley's intent should have been obvious to staff at Wakefield Prison. Despite being a notorious killer, he has every whim catered for. Huntley's even allowed a photo in his cell of ex-girlfriend Maxine Carr. It's the same cushy culture that allowed Southport killer Alex Rudakubana to throw boiling water over a prison guard. Huntley doesn't deserve to live. Let alone be indulged in his sick fantasies. In big Trouble WE can't think what possessed him. Why would married billionaire tech boss Andy Byron risk being caught with his Chief People Officer mistress on a kiss-cam at a Coldplay gig? It must have been a Rush of Blood to the Head. Or at least some other part of his anatomy.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
Sex abuse in schools: State accused of ignoring its liability for redress
The Government has been accused of refusing to acknowledge the O'Keeffe judgment, by claiming the State does not bear liability for historical child sex abuse in schools . The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) and Louise O'Keeffe have both questioned Government guidance which appears to suggest it may not be the responsibility of the State to pay for redress. Ms O'Keeffe successfully took the State to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2014 for failing to protect her from sexual abuse in Dunderrow national school in Cork in the 1970s. The ECHR found that the State had an obligation to protect her from the abuse she had suffered from her then school principal Leo Hickey. Ms O'Keeffe was awarded redress, and since then has been campaigning for the same redress to be made available to other abuse survivors. READ MORE The Government has agreed to set up a commission of investigation into the handling of sexual abuse in schools, but officials are still considering the issues around the setting up of a redress scheme for survivors of such abuse. It is understood there are concerns within the Government about the demand for and costs of such a scheme, which would be likely to be the largest in the history of the State. [ Q&A: Will survivors of historical abuse in schools be compensated? And who will be liable? Opens in new window ] An interdepartmental report prepared by officials from the departments of the Taoiseach, education, justice, children and public expenditure and reform warned that setting up such a redress scheme was 'as complex' as setting up a commission of investigation. It said that guidance from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform had warned against 'rushed approaches to redress, including the assumption of risk by the State when liability should more appropriately be borne by third parties'. The report also considered the question of who bears liability for the actions of school employees. 'It has been concluded in case law, at Supreme Court level, that the State does not have such liability,' it said. Liam Herrick, chair of IHREC, said that as recently as January 2024 the State had told the ECHR it was working to meet its legal obligation 'to abide by the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights'. 'The report of the IDG indicates that Government departments adopt a different position in refusing to acknowledge the primacy of the O'Keeffe judgment,' Mr Herrick said. 'So, it must be asked, what is the State really saying to the victims and survivors who have been waiting so many years for the redress they are legally entitled to? Can the Government confirm that it does accept the ruling of the European court which found that the State does bear responsibility for abuse that occurred in schools?' Ms O'Keeffe told The Irish Times the Government was 'basically trying to avoid looking at the ECHR judgment'. 'They are particularly dwelling on the religious organisations as being responsible for paying redress, and seem to be avoiding their own responsibility,' she said. Prof Conor O'Mahony, director of the child law clinic at UCC, said the claim that the State does not bear liability in such cases was 'staggering'. He said the O'Keeffe judgment applied to 'every case of abuse that occurred in any Irish school prior to the adoption of State guidelines on the reporting of abuse in schools in 1992' . A spokesman for the Department of Education said 'domestic courts have ruled that the State is not vicariously liable for the acts of a teacher appointed by the manager of a national school'. 'The 2014 ECHR judgement in O'Keeffe v Ireland indicated that the State bore partial responsibility where a complaint had been made against an alleged abuser and no system was in place to act upon that complaint. Since that ruling, extensive measures have been put in place to improve child protection in schools, including detection and reporting mechanisms as well as vetting and greater overall awareness,' the spokesman said.
New Statesman
3 days ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
In defence of Lord Hermer
Photo byIn a competitive field the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is the biggest ministerial villain for the right-wing newspapers. Rarely a day passes without the Telegraph, Mail and others screaming about what they see as Hermer's hyper-active interventions within government. Hermer dares to warn ministers that they must act within domestic and international law and his critics fume. 'The least patriotic man EVER to hold high office?' asked former professor turned Reform mouthpiece Matt Goodwin in the Mail over the weekend. None of the media noise would matter that much but for two additional factors. Some anonymous government insiders are quoted regularly echoing the views of the newspapers in their political pages. How can we be insurgent incumbents, they ask with apparently defiant machismo, when Hermer is forever warning us that we cannot do what we need to do to beat Nigel Farage? Inevitably the rise of Reform is the other factor triggering insider briefings. Farage has never been a great upholder of international law if it gets in the way of 'Britain's interests'. A big part of his pitch is his conviction that Britain must leave the ECHR. Like Keir Starmer, Hermer is a world expert on international law, including the ECHR. Apparently No 10's self-described 'insurgent incumbents' are deeply frustrated. Whenever there is speculation about a cabinet reshuffle Hermer's name is cited as one who could or should be sacked. Such an outcome would be calamitous for Starmer and his government, not least because Hermer is an 'insurgent incumbent' as far as that latest, fashionably imprecise term has any meaning at all. He has the confidence and authority to challenge current orthodoxies that have dominated the British media and political culture since Brexit, including an assumption that breaking international law is to be celebrated because it is in Britain's self interest to do so. This is now a mainstream view in parts of the Conservative Party, Reform, as well as the newspapers. The new orthodoxies shaped Boris Johnson's Rwanda policy, a scheme that the courts found violated both international and domestic law. A recent message from Hermer to the government's law officers triggered another outrage in some newspapers partly because he declared: 'You have a key role in helping ministers meet their overarching [legal] obligation while delivering their policy objectives.' What did they expect the Attorney General to state, that they should urge ministers to ignore the legal obligations? It remains staggering that to assert the centrality of the law stirs raging controversy: 'An Attorney General warns ministers of legal obligations… He should be sacked!' Revealingly, those forces touched in some form or other by Hermer's interventions do not share the angry disdain. Senior Tory and Reform figures predicted that all hell would break loose in the Trump administration over the Chagos Islands deal that partly arose from Hermer's reading of Britain's legal obligations. The opposite happened. Trump praised the arrangements. Back in the UK, the Home Office has nothing but praise for Hermer. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, actively seeks his advice and willingly involves him in sensitive decisions. They do not complain that he is actively or naively obstructing policies they wish to pursue. On some highly charged issues, he shows flexibility. He supports the Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, in her current efforts to reform the ECHR. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Some Labour MPs complain that Hermer is hopeless at politics – a failing that becomes more apparent when the Prime Minister struggles with the political demands of high office and the Chancellor realises she is not as skilled as she believed at the near-impossible art of blending politics and economics. But even that common observation doesn't tell the whole story. I am told that Hermer spends more time in the Westminster tea rooms engaging with backbenchers than most Cabinet ministers. Although he is rarely allowed out to do broadcast interviews he did give one recently to the BBC's Henry Zeffman in which he navigated tricky themes with skill, countering the populist onslaughts with the accessible case for his faith in the law. 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, 'We may comply with it, we may not'… We do. We succeed… Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.' That answer from Hermer forms the substantial case for keeping him in position. The willingness to break laws displayed by previous Tory administrations did not lead to boats being stopped or flights to Rwanda taking off. There was no evidence anywhere that lawbreaking helped the UK. Starmer is ruthless enough to sack an old friend like Hermer. But doing so would raise significant questions about his own public identity and sense of self, far more than with other high-profile dismissals under his leadership. As power edged closer before last summer's election, Starmer showed only limited interest in ministerial appointments. He was preoccupied with campaigning, well before Rishi Sunak announced the election date. Sue Gray played a larger role in many junior appointments, consulting with shadow cabinet members and their advisers on who should form the ministerial teams. But Hermer's appointment was Starmer's alone. He wanted him in that role. Those within government who brief against Hermer are, in effect, challenging Starmer's judgment and worldview. The Prime Minister's public voice is often unclear. Is he the leader who warned that Britain risks becoming an 'island of strangers,' or the one who later regretted saying so? Removing Hermer would suggest that Starmer had once again ceded power and key decisions to advisers who want him to be someone he is not. The symbolism would be stark. But more than that, his government needs the incumbent insurgents to flourish. Ironically, some of the most distinctive change-makers – Hermer, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson – are being briefed against by those who see themselves as the real insurgents. Yet their version of insurgency amounts to continuity with the recent past: support for Michael Gove's secondary school reforms, alignment with Rishi Sunak's caution on net zero, and a desire to emulate Johnson or Farage on international law. Labour's manifesto was titled 'Change'. It is time to move on from that past. Hermer is among those doing just that. Whatever happens in the reshuffle, the genuine incumbent insurgents should remain in place. [See also: Are Unite and Labour heading for divorce?] Related
Spectator
3 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Tories end their term on a high
Labour woes mean Tory smiles. The Conservatives have ended the parliamentary session on a (reasonable) high, after last week's benefits debacle. At the shadow cabinet yesterday, frontbenchers were treated to a presentation by Mark McInnes, the new chief executive, and Paul Bristow – the only real success story from May's local elections. This evening, it was the turn of Kemi Badenoch to address the 1922 Committee for their final meeting before the summer recess. Badenoch's speech was an upbeat affair. She pointed to the U-turns secured on welfare, grooming gangs and winter fuel. Progress was highlighted in a number of key areas, after the shambles of the last election. Following the betting scandal, the Tories have now rebuilt their candidates' team. Social media has been overhauled; a new external agency has been brought to offer advice. There was much talk of the importance of principles unlike the (implicitly) populist Reform. Little reference was made to the recent local elections, in which the party won 15 per cent of the vote. The Tory leader also used her speech to set out a plan for the next three months. She urged attendees to return to their constituencies this summer, to get their name out there and ensure that Nigel Farage does not dominate the airwaves. Then there will be conference, when the party's new stance on membership of the ECHR will be revealed. Badenoch told MPs a variation of the same formulation she has used many times previously. She is prepared to leave the ECHR if it is deemed necessary. But, she stressed, it will not act as a magic bullet for any of Britain's current woes. She noted too that the last time the Tories were in opposition, the 1998 conference was a much more gloomy than 1997, owing to the distraction of the leadership contest. Badenoch told her MPs that she wanted to see all 120 of them in Birmingham this October. Around 70 had piled in today to Committee Room 14 to hear her speech. Thirty seconds of applause greeted her arrival, while questions were a mix of fawning and politeness. James Cleverly fulsomely praised Kemi Badenoch's leadership while Edward Leigh inquired about Lord Wolfson's role in deciding the ECHR policy. Afterwards, it was back to the shadow cabinet room for farewell summer drinks. A positive, if slightly pedestrian, end to a long term. After a tricky 12 months for the Tories, that is no bad thing.
