Latest news with #Europeanconventiononhumanrights
The Guardian
03-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Does human rights law really stop the UK controlling migration? No – and Keir Starmer knows that
Here's a recent quote from a Downing Street source: 'We have to be able to say something on this that isn't just defending the status quo.' The aide was discussing the European convention on human rights (ECHR), a postwar treaty to protect the freedoms of people in Europe, ratified by the UK in 1951. Although it was also central to Keir Starmer's entire pre-political career, his government is looking to water down some of the key provisions. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has announced a review into the 'application of human rights law … to make sure that the immigration and asylum system works effectively' so that 'there is a proper sense of control in the system'. A white paper is expected later this year. It doesn't take a political genius to work out this is about Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party. Farage has been adept at conflating the deporting of foreign criminals with asylum seekers arriving on small boats, when in fact they are entirely separate matters. By claiming the ECHR prevents foreign criminals from being deported, he appears to have succeeded in making human rights a problem for the government. And this is where the real danger lies for Labour, because the perceived need to do – or say – something has led many a politician to do the wrong thing. It's worth spending a bit of time understanding how the law works and why the 'problem' Labour is now addressing, if not amplifying, has been significantly exaggerated and misrepresented. Current rules require the Home Office to make a deportation order against any foreign criminal serving a prison sentence of 12 months or more. Only 'exceptionally' can automatic deportations be avoided if they would breach the ECHR, which in practice typically means the right to family life contained in article 8. The number of people able to invoke this protection is relatively small. Most appeals fail and, of those that succeed, only about one in three are successful on human rights grounds. In the 13 years between 2008 and 2021, the last period for which records are available, that was a total of 2,400 such cases out of 21,500 appeals. But even some of these failed appeals are used anecdotally by the media and politicians to claim the system is being exploited. There was a widely reported case of a man resisting deportation on the grounds that his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets. But in court, the judge described this argument as not getting 'anywhere near the level' required for deportation to be resisted. Indeed, parliament has already set a high bar in this area. Anyone making an article 8 claim must not only have been lawfully resident in the UK for most of their life, but need also be so socially and culturally integrated that there would be 'very significant obstacles' to living in the receiving country. Even if they have a child or partner in the UK who has British citizenship or has been living here for at least seven years, they still have to show it would be 'unduly harsh' either for the child or partner to be separated from them. Individuals who have received a sentence of more than four years must show that there are 'very compelling circumstances' over and above all the other criteria. Cases that succeed typically involve someone who was born in the UK, came as a child, or has a family member with such profound needs that separation would have devastating consequences. Some reports suggest that Denmark has managed to achieve a more restrictive regime while remaining within the tramlines set by the ECHR, but this is untrue. Although Denmark did try to restrict the scope for balancing different rights, it failed to safeguard the ultimate discretion of the courts to block deportation in exceptional cases after being blocked by the ECHR's final arbiter, the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. Three years ago, in a case called Savran, a decision by Danish courts was ruled illegal because it gave scant consideration to how a mentally ill applicant had integrated in Denmark since arriving as a child. The European court has been demonstrably robust in defending the right of countries who have signed up to the ECHR to reach their own judgments as to where the balance lies in respect of family life, so long as basic human rights principles are not violated. And in Britain, even the independent review of the Human Rights Act ordered by the Conservatives found no evidence that our courts were overreaching in this area. The upshot is that unless this Labour government wants to exclude any type of balancing exercise and remove the discretion of the courts entirely, it won't be possible to make any notable reduction to the already small number of those able to rely on article 8. And to be clear: even if article 8 was expunged entirely, it would make little difference to overall immigration figures, which largely reflect the government's view on the economic needs of the country. Neither would it affect those arriving by small boats, the vast majority of whom have no other means of applying for asylum in the UK. So, we're left with the sight of the government trying to thread the needle between reducing the numbers of human rights appeals against deportation and remaining consistent with the ECHR. If the government argues that article 8 is being exploited, it will be both acknowledging a 'problem' that does not really exist and refusing to do the only thing capable of addressing it. That won't win back support among any group of voters, whether it's those peeling off to Reform or the even larger numbers now reportedly backing the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Labour is at risk not so much of losing control over immigration but the narrative around human rights – one subject the prime minister knows better than anyone. One hopes he will stick up for what he has always believed, and keep making the positive case that human rights are an integral part of a compassionate and inclusive society. Jamie Burton is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. Finnian Clarke, also a barrister at Doughty Street, co-authored
The Guardian
30-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Barclays boss confirms bank will bar trans women from using female bathrooms
The boss of Barclays has said the bank will prohibit trans women from using female bathrooms in its buildings in the wake of the recent supreme court ruling. The bank's chief executive, CS Venkatakrishnan, told reporters the group would not allow trans women to use female bathrooms to ensure that it complies with the law. The UK supreme court ruled earlier in April that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex. Venkatakrishnan said on a media call: 'Following the supreme court ruling … we believe that we have to comply with that by not allowing trans women to use female bathrooms.' 'We strive in every way to make the appropriate facilities available in a comfortable way for people to use and to provide equality of opportunities and development.' Following the court ruling, the UK's equalities watchdog has issued interim guidance that trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services such as shops and hospitals, with the same applicable to trans men using men's toilets. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission also insisted that trans men and women should not be left without access to facilities. The watchdog is working on a more detailed code of practice which it aims to hand to the government by June for ministerial approval. Barclays is one of the first companies to announce a change to its bathroom policy after the court decision as organisations review their approach to comply with the ruling. Britain's first transgender judge, Victoria McCloud, has said she will take the UK to the European court of human rights over the supreme court ruling. She intends to bring action for infringement of her article 6 rights, which guarantee the right to a fair trial in both criminal and civil matters in the European convention on human rights (ECHR). The move by Barclays comes just weeks after the lender scrapped its gender and ethnicity targets for US staff, joining the ranks of UK companies which have bowed to Donald Trump's anti-diversity drive. Managers at the bank's US arm will no longer have to consider how new recruits and promotions advance the careers of women and people from minority ethnic backgrounds, traditionally overlooked in the banking sector. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Venkatakrishnan made the decision after a review into its approach to diversity, equity and inclusion, which started in late 2024. On Wednesday, the bank's boss insisted it was 'committed' to equality and equal opportunities. 'There should be an inclusive working environment where everybody should be comfortable and have the best form of personal expression,' Venkatakrishnan said. The announcement came as Barclays reported a 19% rise in pre-tax profits to £2.72bn for the three months to the end of March, as it set aside more cash for bad debts in the face of 'heightened uncertainty' about the US economy and a global trade war.
The Guardian
29-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UK's first trans judge appeals to European court over supreme court ruling
Britain's first transgender judge is taking the UK to the European court of human rights over the supreme court's ruling on biological sex. The UK supreme court ruled earlier this month that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex, with subsequent guidance from the equalities watchdog amounting to a blanket ban on trans people using toilets and other services of the gender they identify as. Victoria McCloud, a retired judge, is applying to the European Court of Human Rights to bring action against the UK for infringement of her article 6 Rights. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) guarantees the right to a fair trial in both criminal and civil matters. Last year, McCloud sought leave to join the litigation in the supreme court case brought by the gender critical campaigners For Women Scotland against the Scottish government, arguing it could significantly affect legal protections for transgender women, but was rejected. McCloud, now a litigation strategist at W-Legal, told the Guardian: 'The basis is that the supreme court refused to hear me, or my evidence, to provide them with information about the impact on those trans people affected by the judgment and failed to give any reasons'. 'Those are two basic premises of normal justice. There were protest groups speaking on behalf of women in this court case, but ordinary women were not actually represented as a whole. 'The disabled were not represented, and now we're seeing the Conservatives saying that trans people have got to use the disabled loos, which impacts the lives of disabled people. The impacts of all of this have not been dealt with.' The supreme court judgment, and subsequent guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the watchdog that enforces the Equality Act, has sent shock waves through the UK's transgender community and left many business and services unclear about what facilities they are expected to offer. In an 'interim update' on how the ruling should be interpreted, the EHRC said on Friday that in workplaces and services open to the public, such as hospitals or cafes, 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Over the weekend, the Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said it was 'a logical consequence' that transgender people would be banned from using the toilets of the gender they identify as. McCloud said that, rather than resulting in clarity, the judgment and subsequent government and commission statement had 'brought chaos'. 'There's chaos because we've got the supreme court saying one thing, and we've got the government and the EHRC saying another, we've got planning rules that the last government set, whereby inclusive bathrooms are supposed to be discouraged.'
The Guardian
20-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Jenrick and Philp put UK judges' ‘lives at risk' with attacks on integrity, former extremism tsar says
Shadow cabinet ministers Robert Jenrick and Chris Philp are putting judges' 'lives at risk' by launching 'ill-chosen' attacks on their integrity, the outgoing extremism tsar has said. Lord Walney, who until last week was the Conservative-appointed watchdog on political violence, said the senior Tories are 'deeply wrong' for indicating that judges are ideologically driven when enforcing the law. It follows an intervention by the lady chief justice, Sue Carr, who said this week she was 'deeply troubled' by comments made by Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch about a named immigration judge who allowed Palestinian refugees to come to the UK from Gaza. Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, went further than his leader and described the same decision as a 'sick joke', telling GB News it was 'an outrageous example of judicial overreach' that in effect means 'anyone from any conflict zone can come into the UK to be with any family member'. Last week, Philp wrote on Twitter that 'judges have twisted the meaning of ECHR [European convention on human rights] Articles to protect paedophiles instead of children' after a Zimbabwean offender was allowed to stay in the UK because he faced 'substantial hostility' if sent to his home country. Walney, whose position was axed by the government last week, wrote to the lord chancellor Shabana Mahmood and Lady Carr to express his concerns about the intimidation of judges as one of his last acts in the role. Focusing on comments made by Jenrick and Philp, Walney told the Guardian: 'It is deeply unfair when politicians – and newspapers – suggest that judges are pursuing an ideological agenda when they are in fact doing precisely what the law demands of them in implementing human rights law even when it protects criminals we would like to throw out of the country. 'Claiming that judges are making these rulings because they are lefties who hate Britain is not only deeply wrong, it is endangering the safety of public servants who see horrendous spikes in online threats and abuse when their motives are publicly questioned.' In January, Carr launched a security taskforce to identify improved security for judges and online abuse, and oversee their implementation. In June, a man was jailed for pinning down and repeatedly punching a judge, Patrick Perusko, during a family court case. Walney, who was formerly the Labour MP John Woodcock, said the review commissioned by Carr 'should not only examine better physical protection for judges, it should lead to better understanding and restraint from politicians who can put lives at risk with ill chosen words'. In a further indication of Tory distrust of judges, the former prime minister Liz Truss told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland, US, on Wednesday that the British judiciary 'is no longer accountable'. 'The same people are still making the decisions. It's the deep state, it's the unelected bureaucrats, it's the judiciary,' she told the audience. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Starmer and Badenoch's exchange at prime minister's questions last week referenced reports of an appeal by the Palestinian family against the decision by an immigration tribunal judge in September to dismiss their claim. A further appeal was allowed by upper tribunal judges in January. Carr said she was 'deeply troubled to learn of the exchanges' at PMQs and told reporters she had written letters about her concern regarding judicial decisions. 'It is for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. Where parties, including the government, disagree with their findings, they should do so through the appellate process,' she said. Responding to Carr's concerns, Philp said politicians were 'perfectly entitled to comment on decisions by judges'. Jenrick said: 'The principle of the rule of law is being misused. It needs to be reclaimed. It does not, and never has meant, rule by lawyers.' The Conservative party was approached for a comment.
The Guardian
12-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Judge who granted Palestinian family asylum made wrong call, says Keir Starmer
A judge who granted a Palestinian family the right to live in the UK after they applied through a scheme originally meant for Ukrainian refugees made the wrong decision, Keir Starmer has said. A family of six seeking to flee Gaza were allowed to join their brother in the UK after an immigration judge ruled that the Home Office's rejection of their application breached their human rights, it emerged on Tuesday. Starmer said he did not agree with the decision and the Home Office intended to close the loophole. The family had made their application through the Ukraine Family Scheme. Hugo Norton-Taylor, an upper tribunal judge, allowed the family to come to the UK on the basis of their right to a family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights (ECHR). 'We conclude that the respondent's (Home Office's) refusal of the collective human rights claim does not, on the particular facts of these cases, strike a fair balance between the appellants' interests and those of the public. 'On a cumulative basis, the weight we attach to the considerations weighing on the appellants' side of the scales demonstrates a very strong claim indeed. Put another way, there are very compelling or exceptional circumstances. 'Accordingly, the appellants' appeals are allowed,' he said. He said that the youngest children, now aged seven and nine, were 'at a high risk of death or serious injury on a daily basis' and that it was 'overwhelmingly' in their best interests to be in a safer environment with their parents and siblings. Answering the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, during PMQs on Wednesday Starmer said: 'I do not agree with the decision. She is right, it is the wrong decision. She hasn't quite done her homework because the decision in question was taken under the last government.' Starmer said it 'should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration, it should be the government that makes the policy, that is the principle and the home secretary is already looking at the legal loophole which we need to close in this particular case'. As first reported in the Daily Telegraph, the Palestinian family – a mother, father and four children aged seven to 18 – had seen their home destroyed by an airstrike and were living in a Gaza refugee camp with daily threats to their lives from Israeli military attacks. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion They applied using the Ukraine scheme's form in January last year on the basis that it best fitted their circumstances and their situation was so 'compelling and compassionate' that their application should be granted outside its rules. The scheme, set up in March 2022, allowed Ukrainian nationals and their family members to come to the UK if they had a relative who was a British citizen or had settled in the country. About 72,000 visas were issued before it closed last February. The family's claim was initially rejected by an immigration tribunal on the grounds it was outside the Ukraine programme's rules and that parliament decided which countries would benefit from resettlement schemes. Downing Street said the government's solution to closing the 'legal loophole' in the family case would be announced in the 'coming weeks'. The prime minister's official spokesperson declined to say whether the government would be appealing against the judge's decision.
