HLE blogger Simon Hetherington examines the current human rights debate surrounding immigration reform
A couple of weeks ago, we commented on the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights against the deportation after prison of a rapist who, during his fight against deportation, had built up a family life capable of being protected under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). At the same time we noted the interim advice on the reform of that court, issued by the Commission on a Bill of Rights.
Roll forward a fortnight, and as if by magic the government is flagging up its intention to do something about (1) making it easier for us to deport criminals and suspected terrorists, and (2) replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights for Britain.
The government is stepping with care: the whole subject of human rights and related matters, if not exactly taboo, is a source of strain between the coalition partners.
The line chosen by the prime minister and the home secretary is therefore a deliberately fine one: deal with the deportation question by amending the Immigration Rules, rather than making it a Human Rights Act issue and colliding with the Liberal Democrats; and continue the approach to repealing the Human Rights Act by way of the independent commission.
This does not feel right. Whether or not the situation in relation to deportation is something that needs fixing, it is inextricably linked to the right to a family life within the terms of the Convention. It follows that if change is needed, such change impacts upon human rights. To effect it by way of Immigration Rules is questionable…”
Continue reading at www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
