Human Rights Act plans: Criminals to be deported under new bill of rights

France says that Britain’s failure to remove illegal migrants is a key factor behind the influx of people attempting to cross the Channel with the help of people smugglers.

About seven in ten of all successful human rights challenges are brought by foreign offenders, according to the Ministry of Justice. It has helped push up the number of foreign criminals who are released on to the streets, despite being eligible for deportation, to more than 10,000, almost double the number a decade ago.

Raab writes that one of those cases involved a man convicted of battery against his partner who paid no maintenance towards his child. The man was still able to avoid deportation by claiming it breached his right to family life, which is protected in Article 8 of the ECHR.

• The Times view on Tory proposals for the Human Rights Act: Rights and Wrongs

•Meddling with human rights law makes UK less secure, spies warn

Last month a murderer, kidnapper and several paedophiles were among 47 foreign criminals and overstayers who were removed from a deportation flight to Jamaica after last-minute appeals based on human rights.

A new bill of rights will “tip the balance back in favour of public safety”, officials say, which will lower the threshold of the type of offence that would result in an automatic deportation. Ministers are worried that under present human rights law, the right to family life outweighs public safety even in cases where offenders have been convicted of serious violence.

There will also be limits on the ability to use family rights to appeal against deportation, higher evidence thresholds and a narrower definition of family reunion in the bill in an attempt to stop judges interpreting the ECHR “in a way well beyond anything that the architects of the convention envisaged,” a source said.

A “permission stage” will also be introduced that will require claimants to prove they have suffered “significant disadvantage” before their case can proceed. This is aimed at intercepting “spurious” claims. The plans will undergo a 12-week consultation before legislation is introduced in parliament next year.

•Dominic Raab comment: New bill of rights will deliver a healthy dose of common sense

Raab committed the government to remaining as a signatory to the ECHR, under which legal battles are heard by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Raab writes: “A bill of rights won’t give us a magic wand to solve all our problems, but nor would pulling out of the convention. It will reinforce the UK’s traditions of freedom, curb abuses of our human rights laws . . . and deliver a healthy dose of common sense.”

The changes will also aim to correct the balance between free speech and privacy after the Duchess of Sussex’s legal victory over The Mail on Sunday and what Raab has described as a “drift towards continental-style privacy laws”.

Martha Spurrier, the director of the campaign group Liberty, described the proposed bill of rights as “a blatant, unashamed power grab from a government that wants to put themselves above the law. They are quite literally rewriting the rules in their favour so they become untouchable.”

Schona Jolly QC, a human rights specialist, told The Times that the proposals had “all the hallmarks of a cynical attempt to water down rights protections, including for some of the most vulnerable in our society, under the nationalist guise of reframing the arguments about what is quintessentially British”.

Before publishing the consultation ministers said that the bill would ensure that the UK Supreme Court was the “final arbiter” on legal claims in Britain and that parliament, not the European Court of Human Rights, had the primary responsibility for creating law.

However, specialist lawyers told The Times that the government’s aim of bolstering the Supreme Court would probably conflict with the European court’s position under the convention because ultimately those living in the UK could still take claims to Strasbourg. Adam Wagner, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers in London, said: “The European Court of Human Rights will retain the final word because the UK is part of the convention . . . and has a treaty obligation to abide by judgments against the UK.”

David Gauke, Raab’s predecessor as lord chancellor, was among figures who criticised the proposals

DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Kirsty Brimelow QC, the chairwoman of the Bar’s human rights committee, said that “the Human Rights Act actually is a British bill of rights as it enabled members of the public to claim their individual rights without having to travel to Strasbourg”.

She argued that “British courts are required to take account of Strasbourg jurisprudence. They are not currently fettered by the European court” and that “on occasions the Supreme Court has gone further than the European court in application of a human rights duty on the state and this jurisprudence from the UK has been followed in the European court”.

However, officials at the Ministry of Justice said that the legislation would ensure the Supreme Court “has the final say on UK rights by making clear that they should not blindly follow the Strasbourg Court”. They added: “It will mean that rights are interpreted in a UK context, with respect for the country’s case law, traditions and the intention of its elected law makers.”

The justice secretary’s proposals were criticised by one of his Conservative predecessors. David Gauke told The Times that the proposed changes would have a limited impact. “If you really want to stop the ECHR . . . then you need to leave the convention,” he said, adding: “But leaving the convention would send a very poor signal and leave us in a very dubious company.”

Steve Reed, the shadow justice secretary, said: “Labour will oppose the Human Rights Act being ripped to shreds by a Conservative government.”